| 1 |
>>>>> On Thu, 13 Nov 2014, Michael Palimaka wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Suggested policy to get the ball rolling: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> In general, a package must explicitly depend upon what it directly |
| 6 |
> uses. However, to avoid ebuild complexity and developer burden there |
| 7 |
> are some exceptions. Packages that appear in the base system set may |
| 8 |
> be omitted from an ebuild's dependency list in the following |
| 9 |
> circumstances: |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> * C compiler and runtime |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> * C++ compiler and runtime |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> * A POSIX-compliant shell |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> * bash, baselayout, binutils, coreutils, findutils, grep, make |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
awk? diffutils? texinfo? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> * Any archive tools (eg. tar, bzip2, xz-utils) where used for |
| 22 |
> unpacking SRC_URI only |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> * Any command guaranteed by PMS at build-time only (eg. sed, patch) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> Note that in some cases it might be necessary to explicitly specify |
| 27 |
> a dependency that's listed above, such as when a specific |
| 28 |
> implementation is required (eg. a binary package requiring glibc). |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Ulrich |
Archives