Why are implicit package dependencies recorded?

[Alexander Leidinger]

On Sun, 08 May 2005 11:04:07 -0600
"James E. Flemer" <jflemer at uvm.edu> wrote:

> Is there a need for sub-deps to be recorded recursively?  I believe that 
> pkg_add will do the right thing if they are not.  Are there tools that 
> are unable to perform the recursion themselves and need it to be part of 
> the package?
> 
> Outside of the ports/package world, recording of implicit dependencies 
> is normally avoided.  Makefiles are a good example of where (typically) 
> only first-order dependencies are listed, and the tool (make) is 
> responsible for building the dep-tree of sub-deps.

I don't think implicit deps should be recorded. Recording them makes it
easy (in the short term) for a developer, but it's a pain in the ass if
there are major changes in some dependent ports and you have to rebuild
some ports. You're wasting time rebuilding some ports which don't need
to get rebuild.

Bye,
Alexander.

-- 
            It is easier to fix Unix than to live with NT.

http://www.Leidinger.net                       Alexander @ Leidinger.net
  GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91  3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7