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 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1GAEXU-0002Kj-BG for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 07 Aug 2006 23:29:40 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with SMTP id k77NShth014428; Mon, 7 Aug 2006 23:28:43 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k77NPbCH011667 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2006 23:25:38 GMT Received: from home.wh0rd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0516F643BE for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2006 23:25:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 10174 invoked from network); 7 Aug 2006 19:24:08 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO vapier) (192.168.0.2) by 192.168.0.1 with SMTP; 7 Aug 2006 19:24:08 -0400 From: Mike Frysinger Organization: wh0rd.org To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] implicit RDEPEND Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 19:25:37 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.3 References: <200608051612.04891.phreak@gentoo.org> <200608051826.02842.vapier@gentoo.org> <200608071936.53307.carlo@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <200608071936.53307.carlo@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; boundary="nextPart1225538.erQPZSrVnF"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200608071925.38197.vapier@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: ddee3688-0a6c-4f9f-b1b1-ecefaaad725c X-Archives-Hash: a41c14909cba7b783bed8105905186e6 --nextPart1225538.erQPZSrVnF Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-6" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Monday 07 August 2006 13:36, Carsten Lohrke wrote: > On Sunday 06 August 2006 00:26, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > and i'm on the opposite side where implicit RDEPEND should be clean: > > Why? I for one consider explicit dependencies much more clean. i prefer to make the common behavior the default ... if more packages than = not=20 will simply be doing: RDEPEND=3D"${DEPEND}" then typing that up a zillion times is a waste > > - eclass and ebuilds have their own sets of DEPEND/RDEPEND which do not > > in any way affect each other > > That's not true. We use and need the functionality to set dependencies in > the ebuild which take effect in the eclass. Be it by setting a variable > before inherit or by an eclass function called from within the ebuild - > need-kde(), need-apache(), ... you're looking at it wrong, what you need is not broken by my suggestion [ebuild set some vars to affect eclass (eclass env sets up *DEPEND and saves them to $ECLASS_*DEPEND) ebuild env sets up *DEPEND and saves them to *DEPEND] =2Dmike --nextPart1225538.erQPZSrVnF Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (GNU/Linux) iQIVAwUARNfL8UFjO5/oN/WBAQLWcw//fFH2cLGrUtBCEdfGjdgcoilxAY88PKP8 /dm4QXueyxTrMuh7JLBugZ1e2cO5fd6WYAlmfY+WUuLn0/ntVmpE61G7Rx9ea5up XJ08iuQXBgD8hNQ1RAwGn4WsdxJ6rK/KJqLGrnZREXy+FRkzSbERWR7/3CDrGprj 706S9JC9lHecdv0qI6Gfmd5/K5RbNUWI3t6pAlf25vr6J3gCltYinmKiu9aKC5ul HGloFdVtcjMA5DrKPtnXPMizecWcHKihwIjPn75SNOUdpxLGi+fppbSmmgZtuvDA XN8gDOv8TzrVSDdGs41v5crl8hv45FRG6bD423fWjf+Z1GBOM5QgrdiaPKybOerg pAtN1SCU4J4cLxpKD0QMkxV8G1J+GpvU7XP/v1q/vUaBstcaJLwWH6BGAz1tf91w baJ/v6v0xGDCXn0B3A0LytKhaaea+Yh1+1J4GUzwsyNIoJRiWVLCITjjknLkzDbq yrEt0/WaTruP8vKWkgL9af0JMbgFg3M+hl0/d0SXbn+dL0zq9A9WpAXgB+qWd3WH wh3fzYd69Osd48qT2Rgk8czT+RdRoroFIAd08BYtuCtLJ37qkoJMSAjy6weWmaix 7kHT4c98Dmtxp8zVNHhrY5olCAcw4cu07Nn1R5LfmAMUUNARe7rv4YUxbed29ebq yvubxFHsv3Y= =zEoD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1225538.erQPZSrVnF-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list