Recursive dependency?

[Sergey Matveychuk]

Mark Linimon wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 at 08:44:44PM +0200, Tobias Roth wrote:
> 
>>>So does this mean that 37596 needs to be reopened?  Sem?
>>
>>'Someone' was me, and I can confirm that 37596 still is a problem
>>as of today with -STABLE. That's why I pointed Mike to it and asked
>>him to keep sem@ in the loop.
> 
> 
> OK, as bugmeister I'm going to reopen it and mark it as 'suspended'
> while the fix is being worked on, because it's my belief that that's
> the way it should have been set in the first place.
> 
> I'm quite aggressive in closing PRs ... when it's clear the problem
> has been fixed or the circumstances no longer relevant, but that
> doesn't sound like the case here.
> 
> mcl

OK. I see your point. So I'll place my patches (quite simple really) in 
the PR for review (there will a patch for bsd.port.mk too).

-- 
Sem.