| 1 |
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 00:32:49 -0400 |
| 2 |
Matt Turner <mattst88@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Often packages depending on X11 libraries will also have to specify |
| 4 |
> the X11 libraries' proto packages in DEPEND. This is because the X11 |
| 5 |
> library itself #includes files provided by the proto package. It's not |
| 6 |
> really that the X11 library depends on this at run-time, so the |
| 7 |
> protocol packages aren't specified in the RDEPEND of the libraries. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
This is a build-against dependency, and it's best expressed either by |
| 10 |
its own BADEPEND, or (because it's apparently now possible, and because |
| 11 |
otherwise we'd end up with six or seven *DEPEND variables) by switching |
| 12 |
to something like DEPENDENCIES with a build-against label. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
If the Portage guys aren't winding us up when they say that they could |
| 15 |
handle something like DEPENDENCIES without major code changes these |
| 16 |
days, then it could be on the cards for EAPI 5. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives