1 |
Joshua, |
2 |
I know that draft quite well, I used as reference for writing Entropy, |
3 |
our binary package manager which only uses {R,P}DEPEND and not DEPEND. |
4 |
So here comes the issue, when *DEPEND are not declared properly |
5 |
Entropy pulls in unneeded packaged. |
6 |
What you are saying is something I am already aware of :) zmedico has |
7 |
been really helpful :) |
8 |
|
9 |
On 3/14/08, joshua jackson <tsunam@g.o> wrote: |
10 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
11 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
12 |
> |
13 |
> Fabio Erculiani wrote: |
14 |
> |
15 |
> | Hi Joshua, |
16 |
> | I never had issues with my emails. So I don't really know what to |
17 |
> | answer you regarding to your issues :) |
18 |
> | SPLIT: Although I think it can be a suboptimal thing for us, I can |
19 |
> | understand your policy. Let me add that, to me, the biggest issue is |
20 |
> | about (R)DEPEND. Splitting packages and maintaining in an overlay it's |
21 |
> | not that hard. |
22 |
> | |
23 |
> | |
24 |
> | |
25 |
> |
26 |
> I personally have no desire to follow the redhat/debian/other binary |
27 |
> packaging systems which split up infinitesimally small packages. It |
28 |
> causes a lot more busywork in my opinion then any potential benefits |
29 |
> that it gains you. |
30 |
> |
31 |
> As far as the depend issue you mentioned: Having both Rdepends and |
32 |
> Depends isn't as far as I'm aware part of any EAPI currently (Correct me |
33 |
> if I'm wrong people). Rdepends are needed for the builds so you will |
34 |
> often see either RDEPENDS=${DEPEND} or vice versa. If its not there then |
35 |
> its more of a matter of accounting then anything. I would think, and |
36 |
> correct me if I'm wrong again, that it would make sense that if you only |
37 |
> have RDEPENDS or DEPEND, then those same applications are required in |
38 |
> the runtime of the application. Does it need to be explicitly stated? So |
39 |
> far the three package manager that I'm aware of all manage this fine. |
40 |
> Those being portage, paludis, and pkgcore. If there are other package |
41 |
> managers out there that might have issues Its a perfect example of a |
42 |
> reason to be involved in the EAPI discussions to help define what is |
43 |
> needed and where. |
44 |
> |
45 |
> So what I suggest to you is perhaps looking over the EAPI=0 draft |
46 |
> documentation and proposing some additions and or modifications that |
47 |
> benefit everyone (not just one person), as its designed to be a standard |
48 |
> for anyone who makes use of ebuilds and beyond. |
49 |
> |
50 |
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~spb/pms.pdf |
51 |
> |
52 |
> Is the current form, but halcy0n is working on an updated version of it |
53 |
> for the next council meeting. |
54 |
> |
55 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
56 |
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) |
57 |
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org |
58 |
> |
59 |
> |
60 |
> iD8DBQFH2bL22ZWR0Jhg/EsRAkduAJsGBKKl5HgR5YXziPn9yOLbi5F5MwCfacIC |
61 |
> b/aqsokP3A6JFJ7hO4LGNXY= |
62 |
> =BGqi |
63 |
> |
64 |
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
65 |
> -- |
66 |
> gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
67 |
> |
68 |
> |
69 |
|
70 |
|
71 |
-- |
72 |
Fabio Erculiani |
73 |
Information and Communication Technologies Consultant |
74 |
Sabayon Linux Chief Architect |
75 |
http://www.sabayonlinux.org |
76 |
-- |
77 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |