Paul Cunningham wrote:
> 4. A bit more history
> - the binary packages that have 'depend' files that have the
> same content as the 'default depend' was done intentionally,
> so that if the package ever needed extra dependencies it was
> easier to add them (single file edit). I'm happy that you
> have changed these though.
however that also means that if the set of default dependencies
ever change (say some core packages get split up or added, like say
zones did in s10) you have a lot more to update. Plus there are easier
ways if you really want to avoid changing more than one file in a
putback (though I don't know why): some packages in ON append extra
dependencies to the default one via their Makefiles.
I prefer trying to use common code until forced not to. But it
also appears these checked-in depend files didn't work anyway -
in an old copy I have I checked SFWter, which has a checked in
copy of depend with an additional dependency - but the Makefile
still has depend in DATAFILES so it uses the common one. Oops :)
Actually now that I look at it both the SFW and CCD default depend
files (and any packages in either that have their own) probably
need to update to include the new dependencies from zones.
Sigh, never look at anything there's always something broken.
>
> 5. source package dependencies - comments -
> - I'm not really sure that the source packages pkgdefs/SFW*S need
> dependencies, default or otherwise, as they don't depend on
> anything IMO.
Yeah I originally just gave them the default because it was easy and
I figured the default was better than no dependencies. If we really
wanted to though we could make the source package dependencies be
on the things you need in order to compile the package, which
might be useful though probably a lot of work to keep track of
particularly when new things show up on the system and configure
decides to enable new features automatically.
Mike
