| 1 |
Dnia 2015-03-29, o godz. 11:57:12 |
| 2 |
James Le Cuirot <chewi@g.o> napisał(a): |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 12:13:32 +0200 |
| 5 |
> Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > > <app-emulation/emul-linux-x86-jna-20140508-r1 |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > Why do we need to keep app-emulation/emul-linux-x86-jna-20140508-r1 to |
| 10 |
> > simply end up rdepending on |
| 11 |
> > >=virtual/libffi-3.0.13-r1[abi_x86_32(-)] ? Also, no package in the |
| 12 |
> > >tree rdepends on this emul set and, then, |
| 13 |
> > packages outside portage could simply rdepend on libffi directly |
| 14 |
> > instead of needing to keep this |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Michał, as already discussed with Pacho [1], emul-linux-x86-jna can just |
| 17 |
> go away entirely. Nothing requires it and it doesn't make any sense |
| 18 |
> without emul-linux-x86-java though I note that isn't in the list either; |
| 19 |
> I thought it would be. Java herd is struggling with the regular VM |
| 20 |
> packages enough as it is, we could really do without supporting this |
| 21 |
> one as well. I very much doubt that end users need it any more. Any |
| 22 |
> objections to removing it? |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=474464#c5 |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I don't really want to touch Java stuff, so I'd prefer if you handled |
| 27 |
that yourself. That said, feel free to add it to the same p.mask entry. |
| 28 |
Just make sure not to break the dependency graph :). |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Best regards, |
| 32 |
Michał Górny |
Archives