| 1 |
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> it isn't just circular deps. it's also about breaking alternatives and |
| 3 |
> useless bloat. adding "coreutils" to their depend because they execute `mv`, |
| 4 |
> or "sed" because they execute `sed`, etc... is absolutely pointless. same |
| 5 |
> goes for virtual/libc or virtual/os-headers. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Perhaps pointless, but likely harmless as well. I wasn't suggesting |
| 8 |
that we should systematically add @system deps - only that we |
| 9 |
shouldn't systematically remove them either unless they cause harm. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
When I think about the use cases for reduced @system, I think that |
| 12 |
listing them in RDEPEND probably has more utility than having them in |
| 13 |
DEPEND. It usually matters more on minimal systems that the packages |
| 14 |
in the run state are smaller, and the build state often doesn't matter |
| 15 |
as much (consider something installed into a chroot using |
| 16 |
crossdev/etc). Coreutils is obviously an extreme example, although |
| 17 |
even that could be replaced by something like busybox. Then again, |
| 18 |
unless somebody makes a virtual for it I don't think that trying to |
| 19 |
put that in an RDEPEND gets us anywhere. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Bottom line is that if somebody has a reason for sticking an @system |
| 22 |
package in (R)DEPEND I don't see the need to treat it as a bug, unless |
| 23 |
it actually causes harm beyond 30 more bytes in block tail space for |
| 24 |
something in /usr/portage. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Just my two cents... |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Rich |
Archives