| 1 |
Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 2 |
> I think you know what I mean. By definition portage is allready there for |
| 3 |
> the ebuild to be evaluated. It is therefore unnecessary to specify it as |
| 4 |
> a dependency. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Sure I understood that. However, your post said exactly the opposite: |
| 7 |
"... building does not depend on portage being there." |
| 8 |
Also note that I said "implicit dependency". Well, guess I shouldn't |
| 9 |
send nitpicking mails anymore. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> Besides that for most packages any compatible package |
| 12 |
> manager should work (there just is only portage now though). |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Didn't I say that myself? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Marius |
| 17 |
-- |
| 18 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives