[29735] trunk/dports/x11/gtk-engines2/Portfile

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Oct 8, 2007, at 14:49, Yves de Champlain wrote:

> Le 07-10-08 à 14:45, N_Ox a écrit :
>
>> Le 8 oct. 07 à 16:44, Yves de Champlain a écrit :
>>
>>> Le 07-10-08 à 05:34, source_changes at macosforge.org a écrit :
>>>
>>>> Revision 29735 Author rhwood at macports.org Date 2007-10-08  
>>>> 02:34:33 -0700 (Mon, 08 Oct 2007) Log MessageUpdate dependencies  
>>>> based on trace output-depends_build	port:p5-xml-parser
>>>> -depends_lib	port:gtk2 +depends_build	\ +	port:expat \ +	port:p5- 
>>>> xml-parser \ +	port:perl5.8 +depends_lib	\ +	port:atk \ +	 
>>>> port:cairo \ +	port:fontconfig \ +	port:freetype \ +	 
>>>> port:gettext \ +	port:glib2 \ +	port:gtk2 \ +	port:jpeg \ +	 
>>>> port:libiconv \ +	port:libpng \ +	port:pango \ +	port:tiff
>>>
>>> Sorry, but does this make any sense at all ?
>>> I think all it will do is make the dependency checking phase even  
>>> longer and the Portfile stuffier.
>>> And what about the gnome port ?
>>
>> It does make sense if all of these are hard dependencies (as in  
>> "hardcoded in configure.in or somewhere else.")
>> We should not do "If A depends on B and C and B depends on C, then  
>> let's say A depends on B only."
>
> Why not ?

If, as in nox's hypothetical example, A really does depend on B and  
C, then both B and C should be listed as dependencies of A. C should  
not be excluded from the dependencies of A just because B currently  
depends on C. B might stop depending on C at some point, at which  
point A would break if A really does itself independently need C.

I do not know if any of this applies to the commit on which this  
thread is based.