| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 11:16:54 -0600 Joshua Baergen |
| 3 |
> <joshuabaergen@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> | Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> | >RDEPEND lists the things that are needed to use a package once it is |
| 6 |
> | >installed. |
| 7 |
> | |
| 8 |
> | Maybe RDEPEND is insufficient to properly describe a library |
| 9 |
> | package. I see a big difference between using and compiling against |
| 10 |
> | a library. I realize you need to compile against it to use it, but |
| 11 |
> | that's certainly not a run-time dependency. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Well yes, we already know we need a few dozen more new dependency |
| 14 |
> atoms. But we're dealing with "what we can use currently" here, not |
| 15 |
> some hypothetical future situation. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
So define what you need to meet your goals, hell define your goals and |
| 19 |
agree on them ( or at least a subset ). Right now you are just arguing |
| 20 |
back and forth over this small issue. What other issues does the |
| 21 |
current system impose? What do you suggest to fix them? What manner of |
| 22 |
"few dozen more new dependency atoms" are needed and what do they do? |
| 23 |
How can you reconcile the goals of compiling against library headers vs |
| 24 |
embedded's space need? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
With the ideal case decided you can A. Move gentoo to get closer to |
| 27 |
that case; and B. Know the deficiencies in the current implementation. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Right now it just looks like a bunch of people bickering over a policy |
| 30 |
issue. |
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives