Re: [gentoo-dev] Reminder on dependencies.

[Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>]

On Thu, 2005-10-27 at 09:40 -0400, Olivier Crête wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-27-10 at 09:36 +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > On Thursday 27 October 2005 02:15, Luca Barbato wrote:
> > > Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > > > In the case of embedded it is clear that what in binary distributions
> > > > is part of the development package (.la files, static libraries,
> > > > header files) is not desired at all. To break dependencies to only
> > > > strip away some of the headers seems to me a half solution that
> > > > breaks a lot and doesn't solve the problem either.
> > >
> > > Btw embedded has already different way to archive the same result (ok,
> > > removing headers and static libs after isn't really the cleanest
> > > solution but works fine)
> > 
> > The hardest part is probably to build all these packages as the finals 
> > shouldn't have headers while the intermediates (used to build other 
> > finals against) should.
> 
> Again, why not leave everything in the packages and use INSTALL_MASK on
> embedded systems ?


This thread can end. ciaranm provided an example yesterday and his case 
is pretty much for c++ templates and the cases I'm making are for 
things like (example thats no longer valid) wireless-tools pulling in
linux headers and or source into a $ROOT via $RDEPEND due some eclass.

INSTALL_MASK was created for embedded systems by iggy to partially deal
with this sorta problem. It helps but it's not the end all solution.


-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list