| 1 |
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 11:25:00PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> I'd be for having RDEPEND required to be set manually. ;) |
| 3 |
As would I, actually... |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Granted it's a useful convenience, but it also makes nailing the deps |
| 6 |
down much harder. Personally down the line, I'd like to see packages |
| 7 |
that require compilation actually stating the virtual/gcc dep, and |
| 8 |
RDEPEND="${RDEPEND-${DEPEND}}" kind of screws with that. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> But seeing that it would be a huge task and there aren't the resources or |
| 12 |
> support to do it at this time, |
| 13 |
Question is which is preferable. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Changing half the tree is a pita granted and not something to be done |
| 16 |
drop of the hat, but that doesn't mean can't decide to change how |
| 17 |
things are done, and work towards it gradually. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Writing out a helper script wouldn't be too hard, nor would a script |
| 20 |
that does the actual changes- just lift it from ebuild.sh (RDEPEND and |
| 21 |
E_RDEPEND are kept seperate till post sourcing). |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> Anyway, not much point in increasing an already overflowing workload at this |
| 24 |
> point in time. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I'm mainly interested if people agree with the convenience feature |
| 27 |
being worthwhile to keep; I don't think so, but I also occasionally |
| 28 |
have strange ideas :) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Again, note, if people did agree rdepend=${rdepend-${depend}} was |
| 31 |
evil, it's not a massive treewide commit to change it; just would |
| 32 |
require gradually adding explicit rdepend into ebuilds till it's |
| 33 |
done, then ixnaying the convenience feature. Same type of changes |
| 34 |
gradually rolled out for use and has's verbosity (making them no |
| 35 |
longer echo the result)... |
| 36 |
~harring |
Archives