Quoting "Ulrich Spoerlein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (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". Bye, Alexander. -- Be cautious in your daily affairs. http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137 _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
