1 |
On 11/30/2011 08:09 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
2 |
> On Wednesday 30 November 2011 01:23:59 Zac Medico wrote: |
3 |
>> If it wasn't for implicit system dependencies, the system set and its |
4 |
>> dependencies wouldn't need this kind of special treatment. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> if it wasn't for implicit system dependencies, we'd have significant bloat in |
7 |
> the tree |
8 |
|
9 |
I'm not suggesting that we do away with implicit dependencies entirely. |
10 |
However, I think it's good to minimize them, as removing packages like |
11 |
sys-libs/zlib from the system set tends to do. |
12 |
|
13 |
> and circular deps out the wazoo |
14 |
|
15 |
Ignoring circular dependencies doesn't make them go away. Ignoring |
16 |
dependencies can lead to build failures that could have been avoided if |
17 |
they were expressed in a way that the dependency resolver could properly |
18 |
account for them. |
19 |
|
20 |
> there's absolutely no reason every package should depend on sh, find, gawk, ls, |
21 |
> sed, grep, make, gcc, libc, as/ld |
22 |
|
23 |
Agreed, but as said, it's good to minimize these implicit deps. |
24 |
|
25 |
> i wouldn't mind seeing gzip/bzip2/xz being auto calculated from SRC_URI ... |
26 |
> though it would make a system without any of those tricky to bootstrap, so |
27 |
> we'd have to pick at least one |
28 |
|
29 |
Yeah, that would be a nice EAPI extension. |
30 |
-- |
31 |
Thanks, |
32 |
Zac |