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

[Randall Wood]

  A couple of notes on this port:

This big dependency chain was introduced because of a note that gtk- 
engines2 broke if it was installed on a clean machine (ie one that  
did not have GNOME installed on it first).

After the gettext upgrade fiasco, where I was maintaining some ports  
(port A) where the dependency chain was A => B => C => D => E =>  
gettext, but all ports A-E were linked to it by E's requirement, only  
E had the explicit dependency and so A-D had to be manually  
reinstalled. It seems smart to be overly explicit about dependencies  
in these cases.

That said, there may be some overkill here, but I'm not sure how to  
determine what is and what isn't overkill.

On 8 Oct 2007, at 17:43, Ryan Schmidt wrote:

>
> On Oct 8, 2007, at 16:02, Juan Manuel Palacios wrote:
>
>> On Oct 8, 2007, at 3:57 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> But if A only depends on C through B's dependency on it, I don't  
>> really see why such link should be listed explicitly in A's  
>> dependency list.
>
> I agree with that also.
>
>> As in the gtk-engines2 example above: does such port really itself  
>> *explicitly* depend on glib2 (that is, would the sources fail to  
>> preprocess were the glib headers moved aside temporarily, or to  
>> link in the case of missing glib libraries)? Or is the glib2  
>> dependency listed only 'cause gtk2 itself depends on it? In case  
>> of the former, the dependency needs to be clearly stated; in case  
>> of the latter, it's unnecessary bloat in my opinion.
>
> Right, that should be investigated. I'm not familiar enough with  
> gtk-engines2 to know.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> macports-dev mailing list
> macports-dev at lists.macosforge.org
> http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev



Randall Wood
rhwood at mac.com
http://shyramblings.blogspot.com

"The rules are simple: The ball is round. The game lasts 90 minutes.  
All the
rest is just philosophy."