Q: variants specified in dependencies

[Daniel J. Luke]

On Jul 5, 2007, at 2:04 PM, Landon Fuller wrote:
> My own (potentially unpopular) opinion is that this is possible to  
> implement and impossible to support, as it would introduce  
> exponential complexity to the dependency tree.

I agree. The current workarounds for this lack of functionality  
(include as much functionality as possible in the port, create  
another port with the necessary functionality for other ports to  
depend on) work fairly well.

Of course, the complexity of the dependency tree doesn't matter as  
much now as it could if we start building/testing all of the ports as  
has been talked about many times.

--
Daniel J. Luke
+========================================================+
| *---------------- dluke at geeklair.net ----------------* |
| *-------------- http://www.geeklair.net -------------* |
+========================================================+
|   Opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily   |
|          reflect the opinions of my employer.          |
+========================================================+


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/attachments/20070709/3977b027/PGP.bin