1 |
Greg Tassone wrote: |
2 |
> On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 19:39 +0100, Karl Trygve Kalleberg wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
> Karl, |
5 |
> I'm a little confused by the above statement. Are you agreeing with |
6 |
> Josh, or disagreeing? In other words, are you in favor of the tedium |
7 |
> because it gives the ability to check for hidden dependencies? |
8 |
> |
9 |
|
10 |
As far as I understood it a global repo enables hidden dependencies, but |
11 |
we can go around this by just populating the repo with broken symlinks. |
12 |
They don't work unless the package is actually installed and as such we |
13 |
don't have broken depencies. Cleaning every java package away and |
14 |
starting from stratch is any way something we developers should do when |
15 |
committing new packages. |
16 |
|
17 |
> |
18 |
> I agree, although this really is an upstream problem I think. If they |
19 |
> aren't even properly documenting what libraries their application |
20 |
> depends on, I see that as a bigger problem we shouldn't necessarily try |
21 |
> to fix for them. I understand that this does happen in the real world, |
22 |
> however. :-) |
23 |
> |
24 |
|
25 |
If I gave you a penny everytime upstream has good documentation on their |
26 |
dependencies, you wouldn't get too many. |
27 |
|
28 |
Regards, |
29 |
Petteri |