| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Peter Volkov (pva) wrote: |
| 5 |
> On 2006-11-03 at 00:43 -0800, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 6 |
>> Also, some ebuilds will loose some implicit RDEPEND that they current |
| 7 |
>> get from eclasses. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Why? I suppose more logical solution is to adjoin DEPEND from ebuild and |
| 10 |
> RDEPEND from eclass. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Peter. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
You've misunderstood the meaning of "implicit RDEPEND" in my statement above (I |
| 15 |
don't blame you, implicit RDEPEND can be a confusing topic). When I say |
| 16 |
"implicit RDEPEND", I am talking about DEPEND that has been implicitly converted |
| 17 |
to RDEPEND. Some ebuilds may currently have some implicit RDEPEND that |
| 18 |
originated as DEPEND in an eclass. If we use the patch to revert that behavior, |
| 19 |
those specific implicit RDEPEND atoms will go away. I hope this makes sense. :) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Zac |
| 22 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 23 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
iD8DBQFFSw45/ejvha5XGaMRAntfAJ0X0K9U+CtyB4nhq73v8p5EBd5w8ACg8nc4 |
| 26 |
jN+Q4rWo+tfvoVL1YUY01E8= |
| 27 |
=X/2/ |
| 28 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives