1 |
On Thursday 19 January 2012 09:04:08 Rich Freeman wrote: |
2 |
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> > if it's part of the implicit system dep, they absolutely need to defend |
4 |
> > their actions. you want to change the policy, then start a thread on |
5 |
> > it. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> What policy? I don't see any written policy stating that you aren't |
8 |
> allowed to include system packages in *DEPEND. |
9 |
|
10 |
we've always avoided depending on implicit system packages. the devmanual was |
11 |
the first attempt and writing it down, but it doesn't change the history no |
12 |
matter how much you want otherwise. the exact package list has been refined |
13 |
over time to shrink things down, but it hasn't change the policy. |
14 |
|
15 |
> There is a line in the devmanual stating that it is "not necessary, |
16 |
> nor advisable,..." to list some kinds of system dependencies, full of |
17 |
> caveats about the system set varying by profile and specific versions |
18 |
> and such. It does not say that it is not permitted. |
19 |
|
20 |
considering all the packages listed have known conflicts for other profiles, it |
21 |
is an error for you to attempt to include it. and as already stated, doing it |
22 |
is "just in my packages" doesn't fly as crap spreads. |
23 |
-mike |