Re: Octave 3.0 successfully built

[Sergei Steshenko]

--- "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)?
> 
> jwe
> 

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.

Regards,
  Sergei.

Applications From Scratch: http://appsfromscratch.berlios.de/


      
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs