| 1 |
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> it is a problem. not all profiles use "coreutils" ... they provide replacement |
| 3 |
> packages. busybox is just one example. the bsd/prefix guys go in even weirder |
| 4 |
> directions. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Yup - hence my point about coreutils not being a good one to include |
| 7 |
unless you virtualized it, which probably is more than we'd really |
| 8 |
want to do for a system package. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> DEPEND usage is useless cruft to the point of absurdity. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> RDEPEND is much less common as then you're really only talking about the |
| 14 |
> random shell scripts. i'd argue still though that it still doesn't make sense |
| 15 |
> considering a system can hardly boot without "coreutils". and if you are in a |
| 16 |
> situation where you have such a reduced install that it can, the existing |
| 17 |
> @system semantics work for you. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Again, you're using coreutils as an example, and that doesn't seem |
| 20 |
like something that would be much of a value-add to place in RDEPEND. |
| 21 |
However, if you had a package that required openssh, that would seem |
| 22 |
to be a much better candidate for an RDEPEND, since it is trivial to |
| 23 |
boot a system without openssh installed despite it being in system. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Openssh is obviously a bit of a contrived example in the opposite |
| 26 |
direction, but it is in @system. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Basically what I'm advocating is that somebody shouldn't have to |
| 29 |
defend their actions if they include something from @system in |
| 30 |
*DEPEND. Future maintainers are welcome to undo the work of previous |
| 31 |
maintainers as always. @system packages in *DEPEND should not be |
| 32 |
considered a bug (as long as they're right). |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Rich |
Archives