| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> Steve Long wrote: |
| 3 |
> | How serious an issue is it in terms of deps on sys pkgs? |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Very. It means we can't realistically handle packages that, by using |
| 6 |
> autotools, depend upon the fifty odd system packages that are used by |
| 7 |
> autotools-generated code. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> | > | > DEPEND="virtual/c-toolchain" would indeed be nice, but it's a |
| 10 |
> | > | > rather large change... |
| 11 |
> | > | > |
| 12 |
> | > | How so? Isn't it simply a new meta? |
| 13 |
> | > |
| 14 |
> | > And an entire tree to update before it becomes meaningful. |
| 15 |
> | > |
| 16 |
> | Sure, but the changes can propagate thru as people update their |
| 17 |
> | ebuilds, no? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> The tricky part then is figuring out whether something doesn't dep upon |
| 20 |
> c-compiler because it doesn't need one or because the ebuilds haven't |
| 21 |
> been updated. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
I'm out of my depth here- I can't see where that would be a problem? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives