Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Alexander Bersenev <bay@×××××××××.ru>
To: "gentoo-dev@l.g.o" <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: How to handle dependencies on protocol headers?
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 05:00:38
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: How to handle dependencies on protocol headers? by Zac Medico
I like a DEPEND way. But in this way many packages will need to be modified and missing dependencies likely appear. I developed an util to detect missing dependencies

Alexander Bersenev

On 16.09.2011, at 10:49, Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote:

> On 09/15/2011 09:42 PM, Matt Turner wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:32 AM, Matt Turner <mattst88@g.o> wrote: >>> Often packages depending on X11 libraries will also have to specify >>> the X11 libraries' proto packages in DEPEND. This is because the X11 >>> library itself #includes files provided by the proto package. It's not >>> really that the X11 library depends on this at run-time, so the >>> protocol packages aren't specified in the RDEPEND of the libraries. >>> >>> This is documented in a number of bug reports (see 379545), and it >>> seems that the decision is between >>> - add proto package to dependency list of packages using X11 libs >>> - add proto package to rdepend list of the relevant library itself >>> >>> The first is more correct, I think, but it's also much more annoying. >>> Mesa winds up having x11-proto/inputproto in DEPEND for some long >>> forgotten reason, for instance. >>> >>> The second option is much simpler and less error prone, but removes >>> the ability to depclean the proto packages. >>> >>> It seems that some sort of DEPEND variable that means "I only need >>> this when other packages are building against me" would be useful. >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Matt >> >> Another similar situation: >> >> > > Maybe the virtual/mesa-build approach that I suggested can be adapted to > other similar situations: > > > > -- > Thanks, > Zac >