| 1 |
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 16:41:40 +0900 Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| On Sunday 17 December 2006 16:04, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
| > On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 15:10:57 +0900 Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o> |
| 5 |
| > wrote: |
| 6 |
| > | I've tried to be objective here so if my viewpoint isn't obvious |
| 7 |
| > | I'll state it outright. I think all packages should depend on |
| 8 |
| > | every package that they need to build and/or run. Whether this is |
| 9 |
| > | done explicitly or with meta-packages, I don't really care. The |
| 10 |
| > | only reason for not being explicit with deps is to cater for old |
| 11 |
| > | sloppy versions of portage. Unless there are other reasons not |
| 12 |
| > | stated here? |
| 13 |
| > |
| 14 |
| > If you mandate that, any package using autotools will need around |
| 15 |
| > fifty new entries in DEPEND. |
| 16 |
| |
| 17 |
| There's ways to manage this complexity, such as putting the |
| 18 |
| dependencies into autotools' RDEPEND (if it can be considered |
| 19 |
| correct) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
That one pulls us back into the lack of distinction between "stuff |
| 22 |
needed when compiling against this library" and "stuff this library |
| 23 |
needs to run". |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
| or by using meta-packages. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
DEPEND="virtual/c-toolchain" would indeed be nice, but it's a rather |
| 28 |
large change... |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
| 32 |
Mail : ciaranm at ciaranm.org |
| 33 |
Web : http://ciaranm.org/ |
| 34 |
Paludis is faster : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=61 |
Archives