On Mon, 2002-08-26 at 05:41, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Ville> For consistency with other packages, I'd go with
Ville> But we really get around this somehow, before every package
Ville> REQUIRES all others...
I think this is a vain hope. If they require each other, they require
each other. Those REQUIRES aren't in there for no reason....
Yep, of course they're not. But listing all requirements, direct and
indirect/recursive, just shouldn't happen IMO. When time passes and
some of the package X's directly required packages' requirements change,
it will either lead to missing/extra REQUIRES stuff in package X, or to
Refactoring is a possibility. But that could be expensive. (Of
course, Ben is already doing this to some extent by moving packages
back into core.)
Splitting packages into smaller chunks should help with this too.
ville.skytta at xemacs.org