On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:50, Allan McRae <al...@archlinux.org> wrote: > On 19/01/11 22:20, Thomas Bächler wrote: >> >> Am 19.01.2011 08:08, schrieb Allan McRae: >>> >>> If we want to be really pedantic about dependencies, we should list >>> _ALL_ dependencies and not remove the ones that are dependencies of >>> dependencies. >> >> Why don't we just do the correct thing: >> >> If package A depends on package B, and B depends on C, then A might >> depend on C explicitly because it accesses C directly. Or it might only >> depend on indirectly C because B accesses C. We should reflect that in >> dependencies (in the first case, A depends on C, in the second case it >> doesn't). >> >> The result is this: Whenever the dependencies of B change (e.g., C is >> removed), A will still work correctly. > > I agree that would be the correct thing to do. In fact, I looked at doing > this to the extent of including ever package that a program linked to in its > dependencies. This increases the number of dependencies needed for the > average package in the repos greatly (from memory it averaged a several fold > increase).
I don't quite understand what you mean, did you add the transitive closure of all dependencies to the package, or did you only add all direct dependencies? > The side effect of that is there is obviously a correspondingly big increase > in the number of dependency checks that pacman needs to do for each update > and the associated speed hit. I always assumed that we did not list all > dependencies for speed reasons. Well, if the creation of the transitive closure of dependencies is created at package build time, then it can be removed from pacman, that should give a bit of a speed-up I suspect. /M -- Magnus Therning OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4 email: mag...@therning.org jabber: mag...@therning.org twitter: magthe http://therning.org/magnus