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 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1GtDct-0001uh-2z for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 10 Dec 2006 01:37:11 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id kBA1aHlW011713; Sun, 10 Dec 2006 01:36:17 GMT Received: from ppsw-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-1.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.131]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id kBA1YGkn032753 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2006 01:34:16 GMT X-Cam-SpamDetails: Not scanned X-Cam-AntiVirus: No virus found X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/ Received: from cpc4-cmbg1-0-0-cust9.cmbg.cable.ntl.com ([82.21.108.10]:43084 helo=blashyrk) by ppsw-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.151]:465) with esmtpsa (LOGIN:spb42) (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) id 1GtDZu-0004sj-3l (Exim 4.63) for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org (return-path ); Sun, 10 Dec 2006 01:34:08 +0000 Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 01:33:47 +0000 From: Stephen Bennett To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: [gentoo-dev] Dependencies on system packages Message-ID: <20061210013347.02fc22cd@blashyrk> In-Reply-To: <20061210011117.36672693@blashyrk> References: <20061210011117.36672693@blashyrk> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.10.6; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) 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: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "S.P. Bennett" X-Archives-Salt: 938f85b2-9514-4a92-abe3-e0d68a1349d4 X-Archives-Hash: 26b9df719dace3d596321614b91d3285 And, on a more general note, don't bother depending on a package listed in base/packages. It's pointless and just create more noise. On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 01:11:17 +0000 Stephen Bennett wrote: > There are a lot of packages in the tree which DEPEND on some version > of sys-apps/portage, mostly for historical reasons. Try to avoid doing > this in your packages where possible -- if it's a genuine dependency > then obviously it should be there, but if the dep is only in the > ebuild to avoid hitting a bug that was in portage-2.0.49-r3 (for > example), it's unnecessary now. I'm going to be removing some of > these redundant deps. > > On which note, the current base profile specifies portage-2.0.51.22 or > later -- can anyone see a reason not to require 2.1? There are a lot > of packages that dep on portage-2.1 for the "wrong" reasons above, > which I'd like to be able to clean up. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list