<beerman>
i can imagine a optional dependency line that gets injected in some way to the original dependency chain? not that i would know how to do that with the prt-get codebase, but a good plan is half of the work if we decide to go that route
<farkuhar>
in one of the later posts to the 2008-May thread, jue sounded more open to the optional dependency line, "as long as the field is informal only and the maintainer is not forced to use it." I think tilman was overreaching a bit, to claim that adding new logic to prt-get would force maintainers to fill out the Optional line.
<farkuhar>
as predicted, too many cyclic dependencies are created by injecting the optional dependency line naively: http://sprunge.us/NHDxbS (trimmed output to the first 12 targets). I'll have to finesse the algorithm a little more.