On Nov 2, 2004, at 4:23 AM, Daniel Macks wrote:
On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 12:07:06PM -0500, David R. Morrison wrote:Dear Fink developers,
In the course of working to update several of fink's "essential"
packages, some of us have come to realize that we need a policy change:
we need packages to explicitly declare their dependencies on essential
packages.
The contrary policy -- that packages should *not* declare dependencies on essential packages -- has been part of the lore of Fink for some time, although I do not believe it is written down anywhere.
It was stated as policy during discusions of the ->10.3 (I think) tree migration. Closest I know for current documentation is the Packaging Manual entry for "Essential" "All non-essential packages implicitly depend on the essential ones."
Comments and discussion are welcome.
Sounds good to me.
Yes, me too. Without knowing which packages depend on, for example, apt-shlibs, it becomes impossible to ever remove apt-shlibs from the list of essential packages, even if, in a number of years, we are actually using an apt that has apt82-shlibs. This is annoying. Of course, I could try and build every package in fink and run otool on the resulting binaries to try and find such dependecies, but this would probably take a lifetime on my little powerbook.
That being said, I'd like to hear any contrary points of view, it is entirely possible that we are overlooking advantages to the current system.
Peter
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5588&alloc_id=12065&op=click _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
