On Jul 20, 2005, at 4:56 AM, Martin Costabel wrote:
I can understand that one would require packages to have *explicit* dependencies on essentials, as a preparation to eventually un- essentialize some of these, but *implicit* dependencies on essentials seems to be nonsensical. They are essential, so they are always there. So what's the sense of this?
Martin,These 'implicit dependencies' are the *mechanism* that fink uses to ensure that they're always there.
Our treatment of essential packages currently has a couple of, uh....'surprising features'...so I'll be looking at changing some things. One of the changes under consideration is stopping these implicit dependencies, but this could break a lot of packages, so if we do this it might be best to start during construction of the 10.4 tree.
Alternatively, maybe we could get buildfink to check for us how much would break this way, I'll talk to msachs about that.
Dave
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
