I will concede to this point too that packages should compile the same on everybody's system, or else it causes a nightmare for the user to select and for maintainers to maintain all these separate minimal packages, as I found out when trying to make placeholder packages for OpenSSL.
The "wierd" dependencies for libxml is was originally prompted me look into this too. For example when I tried to update 'upclient' to the latest version, all of a sudden I am asked to select an xfree86 installation. Personally I am not prepared to install that on my system yet (Xfree86, KDE, Gnome, X-Windows, I'm not even sure what they all are, or which one(s) to choose over the other). There's no problem for anyone who already uses these, but to install a bunch of packages, binary pkg or not, to satisfy one or two oddball dependencies just seems wrong: upclient->daemonic->libxml->python->etc.->xfree86. For the purpose of installing daemonic, libxml works fine with Mac OS X 10.2's built-in python (i.e. "python-jaguar" lol). I believe the libxml readme suggests python, but does not actually require it. None of the other dependencies were needed on my system to build daemonic and libxml either. I don't have a suggestion how fink should handle this, or whether this warrants starting a minimalist tree as suggested, but this particular dependency definitely needs to be reexamined. Carsten On Thursday, September 26, 2002, at 10:38 am, Michael Stillwell wrote: > On Friday, Sep 20, 2002, at 01:07 Australia/Melbourne, David R. > Morrison wrote: > >> You've hit on the important point, here. We want fink packages to >> compile the >> same way on everybody's system, no matter what they have installed. >> What this >> implies is: if the configure file will behave differently depending >> on whether >> a certain package is present or not, then we make sure that the >> package is >> present. > > I suppose (grudgingly) this makes sense ... which means more hand > editing I suppose. Is anyone interested in my "minimal" tree? > >> Many of the dependencies you are worried about are "build" >> dependencies only. >> You might want to use fink's binary packages instead, if you're still >> on 10.1. >> (Binary packages for 10.2 are probably at least another month away.) > > I'm on 10.2, but I'm also compiling my own packages so I can put them > into /Fink. > > > > > > --M. > > * * * > http://beebo.org ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
