From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.105.134.102] (helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DiadN-0001HA-Hw for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 16:20:57 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j5FGJTaB025244; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 16:19:29 GMT Received: from igor.genone.homeip.net (dsl-213-023-208-187.arcor-ip.net [213.23.208.187]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j5FGHlB9024465 for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 16:17:47 GMT Received: by igor.genone.homeip.net (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 9DDD12A6D3; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 18:21:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unknown [192.168.0.2]) by igor.genone.homeip.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A44802A47B for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 18:21:53 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <42B0482C.5050203@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 18:24:28 +0300 From: Marius Mauch User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] perl/openssl circular dep, possible solution (python/perl/db devs please read) References: <20050613171829.GA25427@curie-int.orbis-terrarum.net> <200506142332.15057.pauldv@gentoo.org> <20050615005202.65b6df8f@sven.genone.homeip.net> <200506151126.08532.pauldv@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <200506151126.08532.pauldv@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2-gr1-genone_0.7 (2004-11-16) on igor.genone.homeip.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.6 required=7.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00, MISSING_SUBJECT autolearn=ham version=3.0.2-gr1-genone_0.7 X-Archives-Salt: e4ee71b8-5e43-4d9b-83d7-ea626bb8ca4b X-Archives-Hash: 0da0ffd6f400de839d4a30cf3f273e8e Paul de Vrieze wrote: > I think you know what I mean. By definition portage is allready there for > the ebuild to be evaluated. It is therefore unnecessary to specify it as > a dependency. Sure I understood that. However, your post said exactly the opposite: "... building does not depend on portage being there." Also note that I said "implicit dependency". Well, guess I shouldn't send nitpicking mails anymore. > Besides that for most packages any compatible package > manager should work (there just is only portage now though). Didn't I say that myself? Marius -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list