What ports require this port?
kamikaze at bsdforen.de
Tue Feb 8 14:36:52 UTC 2011
On 07/02/2011 21:13, Dan Langille wrote:
> On Mon, February 7, 2011 11:06 am, Dominic Fandrey wrote:
>> On 07/02/2011 03:01, b. f. wrote:
>>>> Over the weekend, a new feature was added to FreshPorts BETA. A port
>>>> now lists all ports that require it. This code will eventually move to
>>>> production after it's been running on on the beta site for a while.
>>>> * The code uses the output of make -V RUN_DEPENDS -V LIB_DEPENDS -V
>>> If you're going to include BUILD_DEPENDS, then you should also use -V
>>> PATCH_DEPENDS -V FETCH_DEPENDS.
>> Maybe it should be split into "The package requires" only listing the
>> INSTALL_DEPENDS and "The port requires" listing all dependencies.
> Your post, combined with new information, has raised a question.
> Consider 'make build-depends-list' and 'make run-depends-list' for
> $ make build-depends-list
> $ make run-depends-list
> I am tempted to alter FreshPorts and abandon all *_DEPENDS and use just
> run-depends-list and build-depends-list.
> How much value is there is having all of this information separated into
> individual _DEPENDS?
The value is mostly for ports maintainers, commiters and tool developers
i.e. those who develop pointyhat, tinderbox, portmaster or my little
I think the relevant question is, which information is needed by the
freshports users. The way I see it there are two relevant user groups,
those who use packages and those who build packages. The first group
only needs the run-depends, the second group needs the combined
run- and build-depends.
So I think those two lists is exactly what you need. I don't see
added value for the end user in providing more fine grained
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
More information about the freebsd-ports