Time to abandon recursive pulling of dependencies?

Ulrich Spoerlein uspoerlein at gmail.com
Wed May 16 17:42:45 UTC 2007

Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> Quoting "Ulrich Spoerlein" <uspoerlein at gmail.com> (Wed, 16 May 2007 18:28:55 +0200):
> > > The problem not discussed so far is: some ports may not have all first
> > > order dependencies. So anyone wanting to change this should install a
> > > tinderbox and start testing fixing those ports.
> > 
> > Hmmm, this is a red herring, no? A first order dependency is
> > everything the port specifies in it's _DEPENDS variables. If you
> > change the internal representation of the tree, keeping the transitive
> > hull intact (!!) then there should be no user visible change in how
> > package dependencies are pulled in.
> Yes and no. It is not only about the package dependency, but also about
> a "portupgrade -f" or "bumping all ports which depend directly upon lib
> X".

I see. In theory, we could use the mtime of some file
/var/db/pkg/PKNAME/+FOO to work out what needs rebuilding/reinstalling
(this is just like make(1) does it).

In practice this would lead to way too many false positives, ie.,
unnecessary port rebuilds.

Ulrich Spoerlein
"The trouble with the dictionary is you have to know how the word is
spelled before you can look it up to see how it is spelled."
-- Will Cuppy

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list