Roland Illig wrote:
> Matthias Scheler wrote:
>> The result of this change is that every package including
>> "pkgsrc/devel/binutils/buildlink3.mk" (e.g. "pkgsrc/multimedia/mplayer")
>> no requires the "binutils" package from "pkgsrc". This was not necessary
>> before and the "mplayer" package could be build without problems that 
>> way.
> 
> But the pkgsrc package provides the libraries and headers. Shouldn't a 
> built-in package provide the same things as a pkgsrc one?
> 
> How is a "good enough" system-provided package defined? There's nothing 
> in the pkgsrc guide about this topic. :(

This is the fault of stuff not really catching up with new changes in 
pkgsrc.  Most packages include binutils/buildlink3.mk because they want 
the binaries.  If I were doing it now, I would have added them to the 
tools framework so that we could say USE_TOOLS+=... instead.  I believe 
that technically, your builtin.mk changes are correct, even though they 
are causing problems right now.

I don't have time at the moment to look at moving binutils/buildlink3.mk 
logic into the tools framework, but I'll put it high on my TODO list.

	Cheers,

	-- Johnny Lam <jlam@pkgsrc.org>