1 |
On Tuesday 31 May 2005 09:55, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
2 |
> On Monday 30 May 2005 08:51 pm, Brian Harring wrote: |
3 |
> > On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 02:32:45AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
4 |
> > > On Sunday 29 May 2005 01:48 am, Alec Warner wrote: |
5 |
> > > > The actual fix to the bug is a minor one, a small check to Repoman to |
6 |
> > > > make sure ebuilds have both DEPEND and RDEPEND set; and to warn if |
7 |
> > > > they are not set. |
8 |
> > > > |
9 |
> > > > However the use of DEPEND and RDEPEND in the manner that they are |
10 |
> > > > requesting is a large change and thus was brought here for |
11 |
> > > > discussion. |
12 |
> > > |
13 |
> > > i'm against this ... the current behavior is the logical default imho |
14 |
> > |
15 |
> > What of eclasses? Bug 58819 comes to mind... |
16 |
> |
17 |
> i'd be for 'fixing' the eclass behavior ... making it work the same way as |
18 |
> ebuilds |
19 |
|
20 |
I'd be for having DEPEND required to be set manually. ;) |
21 |
|
22 |
But seeing that it would be a huge task and there aren't the resources or |
23 |
support to do it at this time, and as I feel standards (even when they're |
24 |
wrong :P ) are most important of all, I'd agree to making RDEPEND default to |
25 |
DEPEND for eclasses too. |
26 |
|
27 |
Perhaps, further down the track we'd be able to work out something with the |
28 |
build farm thingy; check for linkage and warn if things specified in RDEPEND |
29 |
aren't linked against and build up a whitelist from it... Perhaps repoman |
30 |
will become smart enough to detect exactly which RDEPENDs are being defaulted |
31 |
to what and where and then provide a warning and a resolution... |
32 |
|
33 |
Anyway, not much point in increasing an already overflowing workload at this |
34 |
point in time. |
35 |
|
36 |
Regards, |
37 |
Jason Stubbs |