On 2016/04/11 16:11, Christian Weisgerber wrote: > Antoine Jacoutot: > > > I am just asking because if we go this way, then I will need to change 1000 > > ports to add stuffs like devel/glib2 in LIB_DEPENDS because glib-2 is in > > WANTLIB which I think is a bit silly. > > So if the end result is the same, all I am saying is that for *my* ports, > > I'd rather keep LIB_DEPENDS as small as possible. As long as I can keep > > doing it, then fine. > > It's at the maintainer's discretion.
Agreed. Certainly for my own ports I'm much happier to list "hard" dependencies directly, it reduces the amount of work needed if something is removed upwards in the chain, and gives me a better idea of what needs testing when I update a library, but OTOH tracking down everything especially for the big chains involving Gtk+2/3, glib, etc isn't really going to be possible.
