--- "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.