| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 31/08/12 10:56 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 5 |
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> I believe that the more important direction here is to make |
| 8 |
>> development *easier*, not harder. Adding the same DEPENDs over |
| 9 |
>> and over again to every single package is at least frustrating. |
| 10 |
>> Similarly frustrating would be if those 'reduced systems' had to |
| 11 |
>> rebuild gcc every time they wanted to compile something... oh |
| 12 |
>> wait, they would have to bootstrap it every time. |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> you would achieve it better by adding pkgconfig to DEPEND in |
| 16 |
> eutils.eclass than putting it in @system since in the latter case |
| 17 |
> it would also be a RDEPEND of everything basically |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
And realistically that's where the DEPEND should be anyways, IMO -- |
| 21 |
appended by the eclass where the function is that uses it. If this |
| 22 |
means prune_libtool_files() gets separated out of eutils and put in |
| 23 |
its own eclass (so that all the eutils inheritors don't suddenly need |
| 24 |
virtual/pkgconfig unnecessarily), then so be it. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 27 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlBA0rMACgkQ2ugaI38ACPB8dgD8CsXPJvPDjI3111dXT/z+gGUM |
| 30 |
q8wTmMYqR2zVJasZMJQA/25de5bSofnwk4fXlCwPEFJ3Tu9rtCFRAx+q95oGFkad |
| 31 |
=GWHe |
| 32 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives