Re: pkg/29799: ...pkgsrc/graphics/SDL_image has bogus GLUT dependency.

[Richard Rauch <rkr%olib.org@localhost>]

The following reply was made to PR pkg/29799; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Richard Rauch <rkr%olib.org@localhost>
To: Ben Collver <ben%NetBSD.org@localhost>
Cc: pkg-manager%NetBSD.org@localhost, gnats-admin%NetBSD.org@localhost,
        pkgsrc-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost, gnats-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost
Subject: Re: pkg/29799: ...pkgsrc/graphics/SDL_image has bogus GLUT dependency.
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 17:28:43 -0600

 On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 06:46:05AM -0800, Ben Collver wrote:
 > On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 02:30:00PM +0000, rkr%olib.org@localhost wrote:
 > > >Synopsis:       ...pkgsrc/graphics/SDL_image has bogus GLUT dependency.
 > 
 > SDL_image depends on SDL, which in turn depends on GLUT.  I am not sure
 > if the dependency is bogus.  What is the problem?
 
 SDL_image, itself, has no GLUT references.  All GLUT functions and
 other symbols have either a "glut" or "GLUT" string prefix to their
 names.  Whether SDL itself truly requires GLUT, I don't know.  But
 there is no direct link from SDL_image to GLUT.
 
 The problem is that the more dependencies there are, the more likely it
 is that you'll get the dreaded cascade of rebuilds, and that the
 cascade may extend further.
 
 I also thought that I had read that pkgsrc was trying to cut back on
 explicitly listing indirect dependencies.  So even if there is a real
 indirect GLUT link via SDL (I haven't checked), shouldn't SDL_image
 only list as depends those things that it directly depends upon?
 
 
 -- 
   "I probably don't know what I'm talking about."  http://www.olib.org/~rkr/