| 1 |
And, on a more general note, don't bother depending on a package listed |
| 2 |
in base/packages. It's pointless and just create more noise. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 01:11:17 +0000 |
| 6 |
Stephen Bennett <spb@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> There are a lot of packages in the tree which DEPEND on some version |
| 9 |
> of sys-apps/portage, mostly for historical reasons. Try to avoid doing |
| 10 |
> this in your packages where possible -- if it's a genuine dependency |
| 11 |
> then obviously it should be there, but if the dep is only in the |
| 12 |
> ebuild to avoid hitting a bug that was in portage-2.0.49-r3 (for |
| 13 |
> example), it's unnecessary now. I'm going to be removing some of |
| 14 |
> these redundant deps. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> On which note, the current base profile specifies portage-2.0.51.22 or |
| 17 |
> later -- can anyone see a reason not to require 2.1? There are a lot |
| 18 |
> of packages that dep on portage-2.1 for the "wrong" reasons above, |
| 19 |
> which I'd like to be able to clean up. |
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives