| 1 |
On Wednesday 18 January 2012 13:42:12 Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > it isn't just circular deps. it's also about breaking alternatives and |
| 4 |
> > useless bloat. adding "coreutils" to their depend because they execute |
| 5 |
> > `mv`, or "sed" because they execute `sed`, etc... is absolutely |
| 6 |
> > pointless. same goes for virtual/libc or virtual/os-headers. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Perhaps pointless, but likely harmless as well. I wasn't suggesting |
| 9 |
> that we should systematically add @system deps - only that we |
| 10 |
> shouldn't systematically remove them either unless they cause harm. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
it is a problem. not all profiles use "coreutils" ... they provide replacement |
| 13 |
packages. busybox is just one example. the bsd/prefix guys go in even weirder |
| 14 |
directions. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
it also encourages people to add this crap to other packages, and gets us into |
| 17 |
an even more confusing state. people look at existing ebuilds as examples, |
| 18 |
and having things like "grep" or "sed" or "coreutils" sets an awful example. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
when i see these things in ebuilds, i make sure to scrub them when updating. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> When I think about the use cases for reduced @system, I think that |
| 23 |
> listing them in RDEPEND probably has more utility than having them in |
| 24 |
> DEPEND. It usually matters more on minimal systems that the packages |
| 25 |
> in the run state are smaller, and the build state often doesn't matter |
| 26 |
> as much (consider something installed into a chroot using |
| 27 |
> crossdev/etc). Coreutils is obviously an extreme example, although |
| 28 |
> even that could be replaced by something like busybox. Then again, |
| 29 |
> unless somebody makes a virtual for it I don't think that trying to |
| 30 |
> put that in an RDEPEND gets us anywhere. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
DEPEND usage is useless cruft to the point of absurdity. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
RDEPEND is much less common as then you're really only talking about the |
| 35 |
random shell scripts. i'd argue still though that it still doesn't make sense |
| 36 |
considering a system can hardly boot without "coreutils". and if you are in a |
| 37 |
situation where you have such a reduced install that it can, the existing |
| 38 |
@system semantics work for you. |
| 39 |
-mike |
Archives