Opposed until someone can demonstrate working dependency algorithms
that take this into account.
-1
Adam K
David Golden wrote:
especially handy for case of circular dependencies, where the A requires
B at runtime, but B requires A at build time. (kentnl)
Isn't this just the difference between build_requires and (runtime_)requires?
I'm not seeing a difference between the latter and post_requires.
13. Add a post_depends set
Proposal:
Permit specifying of packages that should be installed to provide part of a
packages functionality, but should be installed/built *after* the package
is installed. (kentnl)
Comments:
* Being able to specify package that should be installed after the current
* David Golden xda...@gmail.com [2009-10-09T07:48:25]
13. Add a post_depends set
Proposal:
Permit specifying of packages that should be installed to provide part of a
packages functionality, but should be installed/built *after* the package
is installed. (kentnl)
No vote. I'm
On Oct 9, 2009, at 6:48 AM, David Golden wrote:
13. Add a post_depends set
Proposal:
Permit specifying of packages that should be installed to provide
part of a
packages functionality, but should be installed/built *after* the
package
is installed. (kentnl)
I hate circular
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 7:48 AM, David Golden xda...@gmail.com wrote:
13. Add a post_depends set
Proposal:
Permit specifying of packages that should be installed to provide part of a
packages functionality, but should be installed/built *after* the package
is installed. (kentnl)
Strongly
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Hans Dieter Pearcey h...@pobox.com wrote:
Excerpts from David Golden's message of Fri Oct 09 12:09:09 -0400 2009:
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 7:48 AM, David Golden xda...@gmail.com wrote:
Permit specifying of packages that should be installed to provide part of a
7 matches
Mail list logo