| 1 |
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 8:14 PM Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On 9/12/19 5:23 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > Putting the dependencies in RDEPEND means users get stuck with yet |
| 6 |
> > another copy of the code installed, in addition to the copy that is |
| 7 |
> > statically linked into all reverse dependencies. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > It's not a very good solution to the problem. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> No argument there. The elegant solution to static linking is to not do |
| 13 |
> it. But I guess that's off the table? So now we're trying to find the |
| 14 |
> best not very good solution. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I'm really objecting to your suggestion that we abuse an existing |
| 17 |
Portage/PMS feature to do something beyond its design. Adding |
| 18 |
fictitious runtime dependencies is wrong, and seems like a very lazy |
| 19 |
solution. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
If you want to propose an extension to PMS to handle this situation, |
| 22 |
that's something I can support. |
Archives