| 1 |
On 06/14/2011 03:54 PM, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 11:41:54PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 06:14:06AM +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 05:58:56 +0200 |
| 5 |
>>> Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
>>> |
| 7 |
>>>> Judging from [1], a couple of thousands of ebuilds DEPEND on |
| 8 |
>>>> sys-apps/sed, which is a system package (in profiles/base/packages) |
| 9 |
>>>> since at least 2004. It boils down to some 2535 ebuilds, 1409 packages |
| 10 |
>>>> and 14 eclasses, some requiring a version as high as 4.0.5, which went |
| 11 |
>>>> stable in 2003. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> Since sys-apps/sed is a system package, I would vote for removing the |
| 14 |
>> dependency from the ebuilds/eclasses. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> The implicit system set dependency thing really, really needs to die; |
| 17 |
> at the time of the rule, portage couldn't handle resolving graphs of |
| 18 |
> that sort. PM resolvers for gentoo are generally a fair bit saner |
| 19 |
> now thus doing what you're suggesting isn't really beneficial (frankly |
| 20 |
> it causes some issues for stages, as zac noted). |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> ~brian |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I fixed that implicit system depend rule[1] in devmanual some year ago |
| 26 |
to mention there are exceptions and leaving them out might break |
| 27 |
building order... "Note that this rule also needs consideration for |
| 28 |
packages like", "break building order", ... |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
[1] http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/dependencies/index.html |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
But I'm fine with making it even more clear if that doesn't make the |
| 33 |
case as is |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
- Samuli |
Archives