| 1 |
On 11/30/2011 08:09 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wednesday 30 November 2011 01:23:59 Zac Medico wrote: |
| 3 |
>> If it wasn't for implicit system dependencies, the system set and its |
| 4 |
>> dependencies wouldn't need this kind of special treatment. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> if it wasn't for implicit system dependencies, we'd have significant bloat in |
| 7 |
> the tree |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I'm not suggesting that we do away with implicit dependencies entirely. |
| 10 |
However, I think it's good to minimize them, as removing packages like |
| 11 |
sys-libs/zlib from the system set tends to do. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> and circular deps out the wazoo |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Ignoring circular dependencies doesn't make them go away. Ignoring |
| 16 |
dependencies can lead to build failures that could have been avoided if |
| 17 |
they were expressed in a way that the dependency resolver could properly |
| 18 |
account for them. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> there's absolutely no reason every package should depend on sh, find, gawk, ls, |
| 21 |
> sed, grep, make, gcc, libc, as/ld |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Agreed, but as said, it's good to minimize these implicit deps. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> i wouldn't mind seeing gzip/bzip2/xz being auto calculated from SRC_URI ... |
| 26 |
> though it would make a system without any of those tricky to bootstrap, so |
| 27 |
> we'd have to pick at least one |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Yeah, that would be a nice EAPI extension. |
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Thanks, |
| 32 |
Zac |
Archives