| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
| On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 21:37:03 -0700 Donnie Berkholz |
| 6 |
| <spyderous@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
| | Now, the other side of the story. It's not true runtime dependence |
| 8 |
| | because it's not required for programs to run, only to compile. And |
| 9 |
| | the way I see it, things required for programs to compile are by |
| 10 |
| | definition DEPEND rather than RDEPEND. |
| 11 |
| |
| 12 |
| Not at all. If you've installed libfoo, one of the things you must be |
| 13 |
| able to do is compile things that use libfoo. This sometimes means that |
| 14 |
| libfoo would need a non-build-time dependency upon any libraries used |
| 15 |
| by libfoo's header files. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I disagree. You shouldn't expect to be able to compile things against it |
| 18 |
unless all DEPENDs are installed. The whole point of DEPEND is to be |
| 19 |
able to do things like this; remove all things not necessary for your |
| 20 |
programs to run, not to compile. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Thanks, |
| 23 |
Donnie |
| 24 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 25 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
iD8DBQFDXjx/XVaO67S1rtsRAhSCAKCx+hz350OYMt0DHbH2IioPzMxjiwCcCSMF |
| 28 |
yHlfBgfSVWIKJ5HVi9pOMz4= |
| 29 |
=WHBM |
| 30 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives