On Tuesday 31 May 2005 09:55, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 30 May 2005 08:51 pm, Brian Harring wrote:
> > On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 02:32:45AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Sunday 29 May 2005 01:48 am, Alec Warner wrote:
> > > > The actual fix to the bug is a minor one, a small check to Repoman to
> > > > make sure ebuilds have both DEPEND and RDEPEND set; and to warn if
> > > > they are not set.
> > > >
> > > > However the use of DEPEND and RDEPEND in the manner that they are
> > > > requesting is a large change and thus was brought here for
> > > > discussion.
> > >
> > > i'm against this ... the current behavior is the logical default imho
> >
> > What of eclasses?  Bug 58819 comes to mind...
>
> i'd be for 'fixing' the eclass behavior ... making it work the same way as
> ebuilds

I'd be for having DEPEND required to be set manually. ;)

But seeing that it would be a huge task and there aren't the resources or 
support to do it at this time, and as I feel standards (even when they're 
wrong :P ) are most important of all, I'd agree to making RDEPEND default to 
DEPEND for eclasses too.

Perhaps, further down the track we'd be able to work out something with the 
build farm thingy; check for linkage and warn if things specified in RDEPEND 
aren't linked against and build up a whitelist from it... Perhaps repoman 
will become smart enough to detect exactly which RDEPENDs are being defaulted 
to what and where and then provide a warning and a resolution...

Anyway, not much point in increasing an already overflowing workload at this 
point in time.

Regards,
Jason Stubbs