| 1 |
On 12/28/2009 11:47 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> |
| 5 |
> wrote: |
| 6 |
>> On 12/28/2009 10:51 PM, David Leverton wrote: |
| 7 |
>>> On Monday 28 December 2009 20:50:17 Fabio Erculiani wrote: |
| 8 |
>>>> What all this has to do with the fact that they are just build |
| 9 |
>>>> dependencies? Just wondering. |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>>> They're not just build dependencies. They're required to use the |
| 12 |
>>> library in a |
| 13 |
>>> certain way, namely to compile other programs against it. As long as we |
| 14 |
>>> don't have compile-against dependencies, the only correct way to |
| 15 |
>>> express that |
| 16 |
>>> is RDEPEND (and also DEPEND because they're /also/ needed to build the |
| 17 |
>>> library itself). |
| 18 |
>>> |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>> That's what I've been trying to say (also with my example). |
| 21 |
>> That is, they are more than DEPENDs. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> How comes, |
| 24 |
> this is the list of files owned by xproto: |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
... |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> How can a bunch of .h and pkgconfig files *do* all that magic you are |
| 30 |
> talking about? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
There's no magic involved. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
In order to _use_ libXext, which in this case is building something |
| 35 |
against libXext, also xextproto must be around, because libXext's |
| 36 |
includes are including xextproto's includes. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
As in, libXext must have xextproto around to be a complete package. |
Archives