Re: [gentoo-dev] Implicit system dependency
On 05/11/14 18:49, Mike Gilbert wrote: On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote: On 05/11/14 02:16, Michael Orlitzky wrote: When I was taking my ebuild quizzes, I asked for someone to clarify the implicit system dependency that we have enshrined in the devmanual: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=485356 There is... some agreement, but also special cases and special-special cases that are folklore-only at this point. To me it seems like a fine thing to ask the council to sort out, so I'm asking here for discussion. Can we come up with an idiot-proof list (or FLOWCHART, even!) of what should and should not be excluded from *DEPEND? Assume a C runtime and a C compiler do exist. I would extend that to a C++ compiler and library as well. We are having yet another C++-moment (libstdc++ as usual) so it might change, please beware. lu
Re: [gentoo-dev] Implicit system dependency
On 05/11/14 02:16, Michael Orlitzky wrote: When I was taking my ebuild quizzes, I asked for someone to clarify the implicit system dependency that we have enshrined in the devmanual: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=485356 There is... some agreement, but also special cases and special-special cases that are folklore-only at this point. To me it seems like a fine thing to ask the council to sort out, so I'm asking here for discussion. Can we come up with an idiot-proof list (or FLOWCHART, even!) of what should and should not be excluded from *DEPEND? Assume a C runtime and a C compiler do exist.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Implicit system dependency
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote: On 05/11/14 02:16, Michael Orlitzky wrote: When I was taking my ebuild quizzes, I asked for someone to clarify the implicit system dependency that we have enshrined in the devmanual: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=485356 There is... some agreement, but also special cases and special-special cases that are folklore-only at this point. To me it seems like a fine thing to ask the council to sort out, so I'm asking here for discussion. Can we come up with an idiot-proof list (or FLOWCHART, even!) of what should and should not be excluded from *DEPEND? Assume a C runtime and a C compiler do exist. I would extend that to a C++ compiler and library as well.
[gentoo-dev] Implicit system dependency
When I was taking my ebuild quizzes, I asked for someone to clarify the implicit system dependency that we have enshrined in the devmanual: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=485356 There is... some agreement, but also special cases and special-special cases that are folklore-only at this point. To me it seems like a fine thing to ask the council to sort out, so I'm asking here for discussion. Can we come up with an idiot-proof list (or FLOWCHART, even!) of what should and should not be excluded from *DEPEND?
Re: [gentoo-dev] Implicit system dependency
On 11/04/2014 08:16 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: When I was taking my ebuild quizzes, I asked for someone to clarify the implicit system dependency that we have enshrined in the devmanual: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=485356 There is... some agreement, but also special cases and special-special cases that are folklore-only at this point. To me it seems like a fine thing to ask the council to sort out, so I'm asking here for discussion. Can we come up with an idiot-proof list (or FLOWCHART, even!) of what should and should not be excluded from *DEPEND? In my opinion, it's safe to ignore deps on glibc and gcc at this time, I personally don't ignore any other deps. On of my long term goals is to remove as much as humanly possible from the system set and replace it with the packages.default concept. I can't say we are far enough to actually do this yet, but that's why it's a long term goal. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=393445 -Zero signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
