gcc-6

[Ryan Schmidt]

> On May 19, 2016, at 10:23 AM, René J.V. Bertin <rjvbertin at gmail.com> 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.