On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 03:28:02PM -0700, Brock Pytlik wrote: >> It would seem to me that we don't want the transitive closure here; we >> want any dependencies to be directly stated in case the other packages >> change dependencies later on. > > Well, my thought was that in the past, we've always told people, unless > I've misunderstood, to depend on the transitive closure. I know we've > suggested that people trim their dependencies because the dependencies > will be caught by the closure. Perhaps I've misunderstood the reasoning > behind those directions before. Of course, since I can't find any of > those emails off the top of my head, here's a rough example of what I > thought we'd told people in the past. Suppose I'm publishing foo, which > needs things from the packages bar and baz. Further, suppose bar depends > on baz. I thought we'd told the people publishing foo to only depend on > bar, since baz would be picked up buy bar's dependency.
I think you've probably misunderstood the situations. What we've seen is foo with a dependency on bar, which itself drags in a depedency on baz (but foo doesn't use baz directly) and some folks have wanted to put a dependency in foo on baz. But that's not right, since the use of baz is an implementation detail of bar. For ELF dependencies, if you do the simple thing and run "ldd", it will show you the closure of the libraries used. Many people refer to this list of libraries as the dependencies of the original binary, because they don't know how to get the list that binary itself depends on (elfdump -d). I imagine many of the requests have been because of this, and a general sloppiness about dependency gathering and package granularity. Danek _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
