Alexander Leidinger wrote: > 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".
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 _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
