[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Dependencies on system packages

[Steve Long]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 07:28:25 +0000 Steve Long wrote:
> | Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > That one pulls us back into the lack of distinction between "stuff
> | > needed when compiling against this library" and "stuff this library
> | > needs to run".
> |
> | Wouldn't your c-toolchain or a compiler eg for PERL or Java do?
>
> You're missing the distinction. The easy example, but not the best, is
> pkg-config: many libraries must be used via pkg-config, so they need to
> RDEPEND upon it to avoid breaking binary packages. However, they don't
> actually require it at runtime. The other option, which is just about
> doable in this one particular case, is to make any package that uses a
> library that uses pkg-config DEPEND upon pkg-config.
>
What do you mean by "stuff needed when compiling against this library"? I'm
not understanding what distinction you're trying to make- a reverse-compile
dep? I can understand compile-time dependencies and run-time dependencies.
You seem to be talking about the compile-time dependency of any pkg
compiling against a library. Doh! I see what you mean, that isn't the same;
so effectively there's another type of dep.

How serious an issue is it in terms of deps on sys pkgs?

> | > DEPEND="virtual/c-toolchain" would indeed be nice, but it's a rather
> | > large change...
> | >
> | How so? Isn't it simply a new meta?
>
> And an entire tree to update before it becomes meaningful.
>
Sure, but the changes can propagate thru as people update their ebuilds, no?

-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list