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 1GA95n-00059c-Rn for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 07 Aug 2006 17:40:44 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with SMTP id k77Hdhw5027550; Mon, 7 Aug 2006 17:39:43 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 k77Hav7w007399 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2006 17:36:58 GMT Received: from iglu.bnet.local (d057174.adsl.hansenet.de [80.171.57.174]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4993C644BD for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2006 17:36:57 +0000 (UTC) From: Carsten Lohrke To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] implicit RDEPEND Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 19:36:53 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.4 References: <200608051612.04891.phreak@gentoo.org> <44D50DD5.9040307@gentoo.org> <200608051826.02842.vapier@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <200608051826.02842.vapier@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="nextPart1973495.fEZz7ChoDW"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200608071936.53307.carlo@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 78ee6163-ec4b-4fc6-9ee0-ed4854354d06 X-Archives-Hash: acbecc880849dfa74245a7d70061b565 --nextPart1973495.fEZz7ChoDW Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline 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. If Portage a= t=20 some point should distinct between dependencies defined in ebuilds and=20 eclasses, we'd need a defined way to set eclass dependencies in ebuilds, so= =20 Portage actually can do the distiction, not breaking the tree.=20 > - 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 t= he=20 ebuild which take effect in the eclass. Be it by setting a variable before= =20 inherit or by an eclass function called from within the ebuild - need-kde()= ,=20 need-apache(), ... We can't source the eclass and have all its dependencies. Carsten --nextPart1973495.fEZz7ChoDW Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5-ecc0.1.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBE13o1VwbzmvGLSW8RAuhiAJ9+lLPJ5+TEerRHQq9DIXau3Av8KACbBTs7 XLaDVhU+fKu0X25uN0/lp74= =XP1o -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1973495.fEZz7ChoDW-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list