Re: CVS is the `released version'

[Frank Schmitt]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden> writes:

>  > I think names are almost there. If a package follows a rule/standard
>  > of making all 'require' in the top level file (file that provides the
>  > package), we just can search for them to get that list.
>
> It's not that easy.  You also need to account for auto-autoloads (if
> the package developer already has a particular package, he may not
> notice the requirement), and macros and defsubsts (if the developer
> always has these in his environment, then for a user, the package may
> compile, but error at runtime (missing macro) or be very inefficient
> (missing defsubst).
>
> Of course these are generally not difficult to correct, but presumably
> the goal is to catch them in advance!

Perhaps one could build a system like fedoras mock (A system for
building rpms in a special build environment. The build environment
includes only those packages which are available on all installations. It
then downloads and install all packages which are explicitly required by
the package to be build, tries to build it and bails if this fails due
to missing requires.)

-- 
Did you ever realize how much text fits in eighty columns? If you now consider
that a signature usually consists of up to four lines, this gives you enough
space to spread a tremendous amount of information with your messages. So seize
this opportunity and don't waste your signature with bullshit nobody will read.