| 1 |
On Wednesday 18 January 2012 15:45:04 Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > it is a problem. not all profiles use "coreutils" ... they provide |
| 4 |
> > replacement packages. busybox is just one example. the bsd/prefix guys |
| 5 |
> > go in even weirder directions. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Yup - hence my point about coreutils not being a good one to include |
| 8 |
> unless you virtualized it, which probably is more than we'd really |
| 9 |
> want to do for a system package. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
the virtual is irrelevant. it's noise regardless. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> > DEPEND usage is useless cruft to the point of absurdity. |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > RDEPEND is much less common as then you're really only talking about the |
| 16 |
> > random shell scripts. i'd argue still though that it still doesn't make |
| 17 |
> > sense considering a system can hardly boot without "coreutils". and if |
| 18 |
> > you are in a situation where you have such a reduced install that it |
| 19 |
> > can, the existing @system semantics work for you. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Again, you're using coreutils as an example, and that doesn't seem |
| 22 |
> like something that would be much of a value-add to place in RDEPEND. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
a shell ? sed ? grep ? find ? awk ? which ? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> However, if you had a package that required openssh, that would seem |
| 27 |
> to be a much better candidate for an RDEPEND, since it is trivial to |
| 28 |
> boot a system without openssh installed despite it being in system. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
this is a bad example for many reasons: |
| 31 |
- there are already talks of getting rid of it (in favor of stage4/etc...) |
| 32 |
- this doesn't fall inline with our already long stated policy: |
| 33 |
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/dependencies/index.html |
| 34 |
- you're confusing the literal @system with implicit system deps |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
> Basically what I'm advocating is that somebody shouldn't have to |
| 37 |
> defend their actions if they include something from @system in |
| 38 |
> *DEPEND. Future maintainers are welcome to undo the work of previous |
| 39 |
> maintainers as always. @system packages in *DEPEND should not be |
| 40 |
> considered a bug (as long as they're right). |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
if it's part of the implicit system dep, they absolutely need to defend their |
| 43 |
actions. you want to change the policy, then start a thread on it. |
| 44 |
-mike |
Archives