On Saturday 24 February 2007 00:49, Daiajo Tibdixious wrote:

[snip: good info re: making a dependency optional]

Also, make that, when the use flag is disabled, the package refuses to link 
against xprintproto.  Otherwise, you can have a situation where xprintproto 
is unmerged by --depclean, but xdpyinfo is using it dispite the -xprint USE 
flag.

E.g.
xprintproto is merged as a dependency of X
xdpyinfo is merged (-xprint), but finds the appropriate header and links 
against xprintproto.
X is removed.
emerge --depclean thinks it can remove xprintproto, since xdpyinfo doesn't 
depend on it, despite being linked against it.

> The compile was clean, the baseline/regression test (rudimentary) worked
> well.

If the package comes with a testsuite, make sure to run that against both 
the 
old and new versions and hopefully you get similar results.

> So my question is: is this enough to submit as a bug/feature request?

Absolutely.  I've seen feature requests with much less info that eventually 
found a sympathetic developer. 

> I ask because I've submitted quite a few bugs and gotten unpolite
> responses on occassion, left out obvious information, and generally
> looked like the dumb user I'm tring not to be.

Unpolite responses "just happen".  The developers and bug-wrangler don't 
act 
with a single mind, so the unpolite ones aren't "checked" by the polite 
ones.  
In any case, I think you've done most of the work, so it shouldn't be too 
hard to get your feature-request approved.

*DO* give your emerge --info, although it may not seem relevant.
*DO* make the bug as a feature request, and set it's priority 
appropriately.

-- 
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.                     ,= ,-_-. =. 
bss03@volumehost.net                      ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy           `-'(. .)`-' 
http://iguanasuicide.org/                      \_/     
New GPG Key!  Old key expires 2007-03-25.  Upgrade NOW!