Re: [gentoo-dev] manpages that requires dependencies

[Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>]

On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 23:39 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Sunday 27 November 2005 22:09, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 07:58 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 12:46 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > > > Except that no{man,info,doc} are on the to-die list anyway.
> > >
> > > They are very valuable features and quite easy to use without mucking
> > > with INSTALL_MASK. I'm against this change without some justification.
> >
> > further investigation shows that you can't simply get rid of these as
> > several core ebuilds use the feature to control the creation of
> > packages. A quick grep shows that several ebuilds do stuff like.
> > has noman FEATURES && do_stuff
> >
> > openssl/glibc/gcc/dhcp/boa/gdb to name a few that take advantage of the
> > no{man,info,doc} FEATURES= already.
> 
> Core packages or not, they are all broken. When the requirement came up, the 
> respective maintainers should have spoken up so that a proper solution could 
> be found. When are the quick hacks going to stop? :|

Yeah I can also confirm that things are broken and hacks probably wont 
stop till upstream for a given package starts making things like 
nroff/groff optional vs forced. I really don't think we will see that 
happening anytime soon.


-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list