Archives
Archives
| From: | "Petteri Räty" <betelgeuse@g.o> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-dev@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-dev] RDEPEND definition in docs differ from official PMS specs | ||
| Date: | Sun, 18 Jan 2009 11:21:25 | ||
| Message-Id: | 497310D3.8050409@gentoo.org | ||
| In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-dev] RDEPEND definition in docs differ from official PMS specs by Peter Volkov |
||
| 1 | Peter Volkov wrote: |
| 2 | > Marius Mauch schrieb: |
| 3 | >> It's strongly recommended to set both explicitly |
| 4 | > |
| 5 | > FYI, I've opened bug to add repoman check for this: |
| 6 | > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=255358 |
| 7 | > |
| 8 | > /me also had feeling that it's good idea to rely on implicit RDEPEND and |
| 9 | > since it's not true, it's better to warn developers about that. |
| 10 | > |
| 11 | |
| 12 | One thing to note why it's bad to rely on it is that if you have an |
| 13 | eclass setting RDEPEND then you are probably not getting what you wanted. |
| 14 | |
| 15 | Regards, |
| 16 | Petteri |
| File name | MIME type |
|---|---|
| signature.asc | application/pgp-signature |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: [gentoo-dev] RDEPEND definition in docs differ from official PMS specs | Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> |