Alexander Leidinger píše v út 04. 09. 2007 v 11:46 +0200: > Quoting Pav Lucistnik <pav_(_at_)_FreeBSD_(_dot_)_org> (Tue, 04 Sep 2007 11:18:10 +0200): > > > Alexander Leidinger píše v út 04. 09. 2007 v 11:11 +0200: > > > > > > What do you mean by 'explicit' depends? I don't want to list every > > > > single each lib in every single each port, when I can rely on indirect > > > > dependencies via ports like gtk20. > > > > > > Explicit dependencies makes it more easy to just rebuild those ports > > > which use a specific lib which just had an ABI change. Our users want > > > this. > > > > Ah, this nonsense again. > > Please explain why. You are adding a massive overhead on a day-to-day operation, like calculating a dependency list, to solve a problem that only appears few times a year. Did you any benchmarks on what happens if you replace, say, gtk20 with it's explicit dependencies, is all ports that define USE_GNOME=gtk20? Also, the new world order is lot less intuitive and transparent to the porter. Hard to spot mistakes and ommissions will be made. Thirdly, what happens if, say, gtk20 grows a dependency on a new X library? You will go and add it to all the thousands of individual ports? > Would you please provide technical details why you are opposed to lift > the Ports Collection to a higher feature/quality level? I don't think this moves the ports to a higher quality level, quite the opposite. You are basically committing to do a lot of tedious manual work, which is currently done by the framework, just because you think you can do that job marginally better. I don't buy that. Your claws example can be solved by only bumping ports that build_depends on python on next python upgrade. -- Pav Lucistnik <pav_(_at_)_oook_(_dot_)_cz> <pav_(_at_)_FreeBSD_(_dot_)_org> In God we trust. All others must use the callback verifier.
Description: Toto je =?UTF-8?Q?digit=C3=A1ln=C4=9B?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_podepsan=E1?= =?UTF-8?Q?_=C4=8D=C3=A1st?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_zpr=E1vy?=