1 |
On 09/15/2011 09:42 PM, Matt Turner wrote: |
2 |
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:32 AM, Matt Turner <mattst88@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
>> Often packages depending on X11 libraries will also have to specify |
4 |
>> the X11 libraries' proto packages in DEPEND. This is because the X11 |
5 |
>> library itself #includes files provided by the proto package. It's not |
6 |
>> really that the X11 library depends on this at run-time, so the |
7 |
>> protocol packages aren't specified in the RDEPEND of the libraries. |
8 |
>> |
9 |
>> This is documented in a number of bug reports (see 379545), and it |
10 |
>> seems that the decision is between |
11 |
>> - add proto package to dependency list of packages using X11 libs |
12 |
>> - add proto package to rdepend list of the relevant library itself |
13 |
>> |
14 |
>> The first is more correct, I think, but it's also much more annoying. |
15 |
>> Mesa winds up having x11-proto/inputproto in DEPEND for some long |
16 |
>> forgotten reason, for instance. |
17 |
>> |
18 |
>> The second option is much simpler and less error prone, but removes |
19 |
>> the ability to depclean the proto packages. |
20 |
>> |
21 |
>> It seems that some sort of DEPEND variable that means "I only need |
22 |
>> this when other packages are building against me" would be useful. |
23 |
>> Thoughts? |
24 |
>> |
25 |
>> Matt |
26 |
> |
27 |
> Another similar situation: |
28 |
> |
29 |
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=342393 |
30 |
|
31 |
Maybe the virtual/mesa-build approach that I suggested can be adapted to |
32 |
other similar situations: |
33 |
|
34 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=342393#c23 |
35 |
|
36 |
-- |
37 |
Thanks, |
38 |
Zac |