On 2007-Jun-16 13:41:54 +0200, Jeremie Le Hen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 02:54:27AM -0700, Stephen Hurd wrote: >> All of this rather assumes that *everything* is installed from ports. >> 1) install portXXX which requires SDL, so SDL gets sucked in >> 2) build thingYYY (which uses configure and only uses SDL if it's already >> installed - common) manually and install it > >If thingYYY detects SDL and uses it at configure stage, it should be >recorded in the dependency list.
Agreed, but this situation is not easy to detect with the automated ports checks that are in place. > I suppose this is up to the >maintainer to deal with this Yes - but since it requires the maintainer to manually determine what features are automatically detected and enabled, it is something that is error-prone - the maintainer could easily accidently overlook it. >exists or not, nothing would prevent the user from deinstalling SDL >and break thingYYY otherwise. Unfortunately, I can't think of any way to automatically detect this situation. This means that we are basically limited to waiting for people to trip over instances of the problem and report it. -- Peter Jeremy
pgp2LX1YrOuBx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
