> On May 19, 2016, at 10:23 AM, René J.V. Bertin <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thursday May 19 2016 10:09:05 Ryan Schmidt wrote: > >> The description I provided in quotation marks above is what the path:-based >> dependency feature is intended to do. What you perceive is not a bug because >> the feature was not intended to do what you describe. > > I've never condoned that kind of reasoning. "Works as expected/intended" > doesn't mean it cannot be wrong. The feature does what it's intended to do, > but not everything it can logically be expected to do. > >> >> Some ports have used this feature in clever ways, i.e. by ignoring the >> "which shall provide the file at path foo" part of the feature's intended use >> such that "fixing" the "bug" you describe, e.g. by erroring out if the >> indicated port does not provide the indicated file, would probably break >> those ports. So I don't think we should change this feature at all. > > Oh, so *some* clever ways of using the feature are accepted? I just fail to > see how you can use a path: style dependency while ignoring the path: part. > Or I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Because if I do > understand correctly, those ports are more or less guilty of using an > undocumented feature/side-effect (more so than in my proposal), which is > something they should expect to break at any time.
Perhaps. I'm going to exclude myself from this conversation now because I have other things I need to work on. _______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users
