Re: [gentoo-dev] How help in arch testing work

[Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 2196 bytes --]

On Wednesday 18 January 2012 15:45:04 Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > it is a problem.  not all profiles use "coreutils" ... they provide
> > replacement packages.  busybox is just one example.  the bsd/prefix guys
> > go in even weirder directions.
> 
> Yup - hence my point about coreutils not being a good one to include
> unless you virtualized it, which probably is more than we'd really
> want to do for a system package.

the virtual is irrelevant.  it's noise regardless.

> > DEPEND usage is useless cruft to the point of absurdity.
> > 
> > RDEPEND is much less common as then you're really only talking about the
> > random shell scripts.  i'd argue still though that it still doesn't make
> > sense considering a system can hardly boot without "coreutils".  and if
> > you are in a situation where you have such a reduced install that it
> > can, the existing @system semantics work for you.
> 
> Again, you're using coreutils as an example, and that doesn't seem
> like something that would be much of a value-add to place in RDEPEND.

a shell ?  sed ?  grep ?  find ?  awk ?  which ?

> However, if you had a package that required openssh, that would seem
> to be a much better candidate for an RDEPEND, since it is trivial to
> boot a system without openssh installed despite it being in system.

this is a bad example for many reasons:
 - there are already talks of getting rid of it (in favor of stage4/etc...)
 - this doesn't fall inline with our already long stated policy:
	http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/dependencies/index.html
 - you're confusing the literal @system with implicit system deps

> Basically what I'm advocating is that somebody shouldn't have to
> defend their actions if they include something from @system in
> *DEPEND.  Future maintainers are welcome to undo the work of previous
> maintainers as always.  @system packages in *DEPEND should not be
> considered a bug (as long as they're right).

if it's part of the implicit system dep, they absolutely need to defend their 
actions.  you want to change the policy, then start a thread on it.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]