Re: bulk vs. options vs. buildlink

[d.den.brok%uni-bonn.de@localhost]

Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost> schrieb:
> Actually, it does. Installed packages are not supposed to be considered
> a builtin and therefore the dependency computation from pbulk is
> supposed to be invariant to whether or not the dependencies are

Ah, I see, so pbulk is not directly involved.

> installed. What you hit is a problem with the buildlink3.mk files, where
> a dependency is pulled in, that doesn't actually exist in the
> corresponding package.

Well, openldap-client pulls in as a dependency cyrus-sasl, and the
dependency does not actually exist in the sense that openldap-client
is built-in on NetBSD and thus any dependency should be, too. So
it seems to me that to fix this, one would have to touch either
the buildlink3.mk files for all packages that may be built-in and
which may pull in non-built-in dependencies, or mk/bsd.buildlink3.mk.

I don't know what's better. The first solution would require to
touch only a few packages:

databases/openldap-client
graphics/MesaLib
net/bind9[56]
net/net-snmp
security/heimdal
security/openssl

However, future care would be required when adding optional
dependencies to built-in packages. The second approach appears
safer but might be complicated, as one would have to make sure that
dependencies of built-ins also appearing as true dependencies are
buildlinked.

Does this make sense? Are there better solutions?

TIA,

Dennis den Brok