[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Octave 3.0 successfully built

From: Ben Abbott
Subject: Re: Octave 3.0 successfully built
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 11:41:16 +0800

On Jan 6, 2008, at 10:49 AM, Sergei Steshenko wrote:

--- "John W. Eaton" <address@hidden> wrote:

On  5-Jan-2008, Sergei Steshenko wrote:

| Of course, not all of them.
| Because both tools and libraries have their dependencies too.

Most people will simply install packages for the dependencies anyway,
so secondary dependencies will be handled in some automatic way.  In
any case, I think it is reasonable to only list the first level of
dependencies.  Why should the Octave documentation list build
dependencies for other packages?  Shouldn't those other dependencies
be handled recursively (i.e., I'll find out that there are
dependencies for building qhull when I build it)?


I am amused by you logic :-) - specifically, by

"I'll find out that there are dependencies for building qhull when I build it"

Of course you will.

So, why not to be even more lazy and not to modify the above statement to become:

"I'll find out that there are dependencies for building _octave_ when I build it"


Since I've built more than 200 targets from source, I pretty damn well know what
chasing dependencies is.

That's why I've sent the full (except very thin layer of system libraries like
X*, standard "C" library, etc.) 'octave' dependency tree.


I believe the point was to leave the secondary dependencies to the primary dependencies (their documentation should specify them).

To do otherwise, sets a chain on domino's in motion and makes the list very difficult to manage and maintain (esp for a Octave which runs on many different OSs and architectures).


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]