| 1 |
On Tue, 2005-10-25 at 20:16 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:55:36 -0400 solar <solar@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> | Please do not put words in my mouth. I've already asserted to you |
| 4 |
> | several times that the definition of RDEPEND= is unclear and that we |
| 5 |
> | do infact need a new set of depend atoms. R=(runtime) not Buildtime |
| 6 |
> | for the NNth time. Till then please focus your efforts on something |
| 7 |
> | useful that does not break other peoples systems or projects. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Given the choice of possibly causing minor inconvenience to the embedded |
| 10 |
> people or outright breaking the tree for every single user, the sane |
| 11 |
> option is to keep the tree working. If embedded has a requirement for |
| 12 |
> better DEPEND specifications, why don't they start working on a GLEP? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Embedded GLEP eh? |
| 16 |
You two are the ones trying to distort the meaning of RDEPEND= |
| 17 |
simply because the depclean is broken for the cases you make. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Where is your GLEP for this? Where is a real like example? |
| 20 |
I'm sure you can dig back in the tree and show us something you had to |
| 21 |
fix in the tree if this is such a problem as you were asserting |
| 22 |
last night. While your at it please go ahead and show us the code that |
| 23 |
resolves the case for everybody so this silly thread can end. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I've already busted by ass and fixed the vital broken packages and |
| 26 |
eclasses which INCORRECTLY included linux-headers etc in RDEPEND= we |
| 27 |
already worked with releng and other groups to ensure that things |
| 28 |
function properly, so heh no GLEP is needed from embedded as things |
| 29 |
are/were functioning correctly. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
solar <solar@g.o> |
| 33 |
Gentoo Linux |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives