Do I have to do something else here? It seems like this discussion cooled down a bit. Is the patch in review? Is the patch been considered for inclusion? Are there any changes I can do to make more suitable for inclusion? I don't exactly how these things work and if I followed the regular path to submit the patch.
Thanks, Luis On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 8:52 AM, Marc Espie<es...@nerim.net> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 03:59:42PM -0400, Stephen Takacs wrote: >> That might be a solution if you're stricly using package/ports. But >> consider what happens when you manually build and install other programs >> that came in the form of plain old source code tarballs (make && make >> install, etc.) Most of these programs will have library dependencies >> and some of those libraries will have already been installed as >> dependencies of "official" packages. If you remove the whole shebang (a >> package and all its unique deps) then your custom-built programs won't >> find some of their libs anymore... > > That's on my todo list, at some point I'll nove some of the library detection > code from ports to source so that you can easily record manually installed > stuff and not remove useful packages and libraries by mistake. > > There is a plan. That part is the missing piece. Also, making sure > manual-installation is properly recorded. Then trimming outdated dependencies > (and more importantly, old .libs that are no longer in use) becomes rather > simple. > > BUT you need to have a *simple* way to mesh code compiled outside of the ports > framework first... > > This is moving slowly, because, as usual when dealing with packages, full > satisfying answers are hard to come by. 99% of the solution is not good enough.
