From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1EURZV-0001nr-EN for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 25 Oct 2005 16:22:45 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id j9PGLUbb026483; Tue, 25 Oct 2005 16:21:30 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id j9PGJGiU017045 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2005 16:19:16 GMT Received: from bmb24.med.uth.tmc.edu ([129.106.207.24] helo=localhost) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1EURW8-0004hu-5b for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 25 Oct 2005 16:19:16 +0000 Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 11:19:15 -0500 From: Grant Goodyear To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Reminder on dependencies. Message-ID: <20051025161915.GE23614@bmb24.uth.tmc.edu> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <1130199485.1413.3.camel@Darkmere.darkmere> <435DB66F.9060807@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="gDGSpKKIBgtShtf+" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <435DB66F.9060807@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Archives-Salt: d1b190fe-0375-405b-92da-9af139b57809 X-Archives-Hash: 6fa26f52176881350bdc1a878e5b8d55 --gDGSpKKIBgtShtf+ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Donnie Berkholz wrote: [Mon Oct 24 2005, 11:37:03PM CDT] > Now, the other side of the story. It's not true runtime dependence > because it's not required for programs to run, only to compile. And the > way I see it, things required for programs to compile are by definition > DEPEND rather than RDEPEND. I think I'm w/ spider on this one. At the risk of initiating a semantic scuffle, my view is that the DEPEND and RDEPEND variables exist solely to tell portage what packages are needed for portage to produce a fully-functional package. A library w/ missing header dependencies is clearly not fully-functional, so portage needs to include that dependency even if it is a binary package that is being installed. The=20 way to do that is to include the dependency in RDEPEND, even if the name seems to be not quite appropriate. > The consequences of the two sides are like this, from what I can see: >=20 > 1) Headers are run-time and build-time deps >=20 > - - Headers have to be installed even when you're using purely binary > packages, because they are supposedly needed at "runtime" for your > packages to work. >=20 > - - Also, header packages can't be uninstalled after the build via > depclean because they're specified as run-time dependencies. >=20 > 2) Headers are build-time deps only >=20 > - - Binary packages don't require the header packages. >=20 > - - Header packages can be unmerged after builds. >=20 > - - Packages requiring the headers have to DEPEND on them directly, > because DEPENDs don't cascade. (Although this brings to mind the concept > of some sort of cascadable DEPEND.) >=20 >=20 > I'd like to hear what some other people think about this. I've always been a big fan of the fact that by default we install fully-capable packages that include headers, because it makes Gentoo much more appealing to developers. My group is working on some cryo-microscopy software that incorporates quite a number of scientific and graphical libraries, and setting up Ubuntu or Debian for one of our project developers was a pain as I struggled to ensure that I had all of the necessary development packages installed. At the same time, I'm suppose that including header files by default is not such a good thing for the embedded folks. -g2boojum- --=20 Grant Goodyear=09 Gentoo Developer g2boojum@gentoo.org http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 --gDGSpKKIBgtShtf+ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDXlsDptxxUuD2W3YRAiZnAJ4mp4bQ2Aar3QXgVZhuMXoI8ej8+gCeOjMO gif0aEIkSX2D6/USP6Fa0T0= =1X1B -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --gDGSpKKIBgtShtf+-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list