1 |
On Sun, 4 Dec 2011 22:10:19 -0500 |
2 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> In this particular case the approved PMS says "In the pkg phases, at |
4 |
> least one of the following conditions must be met: any command |
5 |
> provided by a packaged listed in DEPEND is available; any command |
6 |
> provided by a packaged listed in RDEPEND is available." |
7 |
|
8 |
Yeah, that's a screwup that's been discussed at length. It shouldn't be |
9 |
giving you any guarantees at all for pkg_*, since RDEPEND-RDEPEND |
10 |
cycles need to be breakable (there are lots of them in the tree). |
11 |
|
12 |
The fix is likely going to be an IDEPEND or something along those lines |
13 |
in the next EAPI. |
14 |
|
15 |
-- |
16 |
Ciaran McCreesh |