| 1 |
begin quote |
| 2 |
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 10:15:20 -0800 |
| 3 |
Seemant Kulleen <seemant@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> So, I was thinking of maybe making them all PROVIDE a virtual/dhcpc or |
| 7 |
> virtual/dhcp-client or something so that the profiles don't force an |
| 8 |
> alternative. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I'd like to implement this in 48 hours, so I await your thoughts. If |
| 11 |
> you agree, don't respond, if you don't then please respond. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Sounds good, don't forget to completely roll all the deps of all the |
| 15 |
DHCP clients then. (That means you need to list virtual/os-headers and |
| 16 |
so on. Even gcc has to be there ;) |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
There's some issues with this, so let me refresh for all the devs out |
| 19 |
there that haven't seen this : |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
all packages listed in the profiles -must- have a complete dependency |
| 22 |
tree listed. That means that if an ssh client needs os-headers to |
| 23 |
compile, it should have them listed. Software not in the profile can |
| 24 |
always count on the fact that "stuff in default profile are there |
| 25 |
anyhow". We can't be that lazy when it comes to how things hang |
| 26 |
together in the profiles. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
okay, this may require some special cases, |
| 30 |
gcc/glibc/gettext/texinfo/binutils have the build? use flag for this, |
| 31 |
but overall, this needs a go-over to make sure things don't break in |
| 32 |
interesting ways. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
//Spider |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
begin .signature |
| 40 |
Tortured users / Laughing in pain |
| 41 |
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information. |
| 42 |
end |
Archives