| 1 |
Ok, getting back to topic: |
| 2 |
DEPEND is a required field in ebuild (RDEPEND though may be omitted, in which |
| 3 |
case it is filled in from DEPEND). As such it makes sense to put some |
| 4 |
absolutely something basic in DEPEND for the package which does not have any |
| 5 |
apparent (as non-trivial, not bad-researched) dependencies. In that respect |
| 6 |
virtual/glibc perfectly fits the bill... |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
On the other hand I had to delete this line from some DEPEND's where some |
| 9 |
other stuff has been listed as well. In this case virtual/glibc does not add |
| 10 |
anything meaningfull and only increases size of ebuild. |
| 11 |
As for number of packages that contain this "dependency": well it is quite |
| 12 |
common for packages to require some libs, etc. So majority of stuff in |
| 13 |
portage have non-empty DEPEND anyway.. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
George |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
On Monday 26 May 2003 11:20, Edward Duffy wrote: |
| 19 |
> d'oh! I feel stupid. So it's about 20-25% of the ebuild that use that |
| 20 |
> depend on it...still seems kind of low. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> On Mon, 2003-05-26 at 14:12, Georgi Georgiev wrote: |
| 23 |
> > On 26/05/2003 at 13:18:44(-0400), Edward Duffy used 0.8Kbytes just to say: |
| 24 |
> > > On the one ebuild I've sumbitted, the dev that committed it added a |
| 25 |
> > > line for |
| 26 |
> > > DEPEND="virtual/glibc" |
| 27 |
> > > |
| 28 |
> > > What wouldn't depend on glibc, isn't that a given? A quick scan |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives