1 |
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
3 |
> Hash: SHA256 |
4 |
> |
5 |
> On 13/11/14 09:05 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
6 |
>> On 11/13/2014 05:30 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote: |
7 |
>>> |
8 |
>>> Suggested policy to get the ball rolling: |
9 |
>>> |
10 |
>>> In general, a package must explicitly depend upon what it |
11 |
>>> directly uses. However, to avoid ebuild complexity and developer |
12 |
>>> burden there are some exceptions. Packages that appear in the |
13 |
>>> base system set may be omitted from an ebuild's dependency list |
14 |
>>> in the following circumstances: |
15 |
>>> |
16 |
>>> * C compiler and runtime |
17 |
>> |
18 |
>> Specifically sys-devel/gcc and sys-libs/glibc (i.e. what's in |
19 |
>> @system), or just anything? |
20 |
>> |
21 |
> |
22 |
> I would sincerely hope that nothing in the tree explicitly requires |
23 |
> gcc as a C compiler. |
24 |
|
25 |
You say this, and then mention glibc in the next sentence. Glibc can |
26 |
only be built with gcc. :) |
27 |
|
28 |
> Glibc is a bit different, it may be necessary to explicitly depend on |
29 |
> it (or use the elibc_glibc flag) if the package can't work with the |
30 |
> libc alternatives, but ideally |