Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Michael Palimaka <kensington@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Implicit system dependency
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 10:30:41
Message-Id: m4217f$ge9$
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Implicit system dependency by Michael Orlitzky
1 On 05/11/14 12:16, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
2 > When I was taking my ebuild quizzes, I asked for someone to clarify the
3 > implicit system dependency that we have enshrined in the devmanual:
4 >
5 >
6 >
7 > There is... some agreement, but also special cases and special-special
8 > cases that are folklore-only at this point. To me it seems like a fine
9 > thing to ask the council to sort out, so I'm asking here for discussion.
10 >
11 > Can we come up with an idiot-proof list (or FLOWCHART, even!) of what
12 > should and should not be excluded from *DEPEND?
13 >
14 >
16 Suggested policy to get the ball rolling:
18 In general, a package must explicitly depend upon what it directly uses.
19 However, to avoid ebuild complexity and developer burden there are some
20 exceptions. Packages that appear in the base system set may be omitted
21 from an ebuild's dependency list in the following circumstances:
23 * C compiler and runtime
25 * C++ compiler and runtime
27 * A POSIX-compliant shell
29 * bash, baselayout, binutils, coreutils, findutils, grep, make
31 * Any archive tools (eg. tar, bzip2, xz-utils) where used for unpacking
32 SRC_URI only
34 * Any command guaranteed by PMS at build-time only (eg. sed, patch)
36 Note that in some cases it might be necessary to explicitly specify a
37 dependency that's listed above, such as when a specific implementation
38 is required (eg. a binary package requiring glibc).


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Implicit system dependency Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Implicit system dependency Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
[gentoo-dev] Re: Implicit system dependency Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>