cvs commit: ports/Mk bsd.port.mk

[Kris Kennaway]

On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 01:34:06PM +0200, Michael Nottebrock wrote:
> Alexander Leidinger schrieb:
> > Kris, what technical reasons are against explicit dependencies, in
> > your opinion? 
> Explicit dependencies would be great, if they can be guaranteed to be
> correct, which basically means we need a way auto-generate them. Maybe
> this could be done in a similar way to the security check target - run
> ldd/objdump over installed executables and libraries, record symbol
> names somewhere, determine dependencies by comparing records ...
> 
> Explicit dependencies that need to be determined and maintained manually
> by port maintainers are useless, since they'll be almost guaranteed to
> be wrong most of the time for those ports that would profit the most
> (shave off the most implicit dependencies) from having them.

Yes, this is the most serious problem.  Also there is no need to
introduce a new variable to handle it: if you want to record explicit
dependencies a better way is to use LIB_ or RUN_DEPENDS and track the
direct vs inherited dependencies differently in the package database.

Kris