On Jul 25, 2007, at 12:58 PM, Xin Liu wrote:
You didn't waste your time, it's just that your suggested fix causes other problems. If you can think of a better way to do it, I'm sure Macports would be happy to incorporate your changes.
I suggest that "upgrade" do not touch bin/lib style dependencies. What problem does this fix cause? You said that this will cause problem for portfiles that use bin/lib style to refer to internal dependencies, but that's their authors' fault: they should not use bin/lib style this way (and I highly suspect any portfile author will do this).
All bin/lib dependencies include a port at the end that will fulfill the dependency. If the user doesn't have the external bin/lib, the port gets installed by macports. In the case of upgrade, macports should indeed manage this installed port. There is not syntax for specifying an external dependency without including a port that will fulfill it.
Or is there any concrete example that a portfile has to use bin/lib style for internal dependencies?
all of them? -- Daniel J. Luke +========================================================+ | *---------------- dluke@geeklair.net ----------------* | | *-------------- http://www.geeklair.net -------------* | +========================================================+ | Opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily | | reflect the opinions of my employer. | +========================================================+