From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JZwTK-0005rz-CW for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:04:26 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CF260E0922; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:04:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA992E0922 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:04:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.19.56] (unknown [69.80.192.62]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 483A0668E9 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:04:24 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <47D9B2F6.4080900@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:04:22 -0700 From: joshua jackson User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080310) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Help offered - Portage tree References: <430880c50803121635g294f505av259707f7e6a746bb@mail.gmail.com> <47D9AA29.8070303@gentoo.org> <430880c50803131542v1e72eb75k44c24161469e148b@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <430880c50803131542v1e72eb75k44c24161469e148b@mail.gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 088647a6-2f27-4914-8051-f33294f7ed95 X-Archives-Hash: 08ab44ae3d6a08c9dea8ac8b88663137 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Fabio Erculiani wrote: | Hi Joshua, | I never had issues with my emails. So I don't really know what to | answer you regarding to your issues :) | SPLIT: Although I think it can be a suboptimal thing for us, I can | understand your policy. Let me add that, to me, the biggest issue is | about (R)DEPEND. Splitting packages and maintaining in an overlay it's | not that hard. | | | I personally have no desire to follow the redhat/debian/other binary packaging systems which split up infinitesimally small packages. It causes a lot more busywork in my opinion then any potential benefits that it gains you. As far as the depend issue you mentioned: Having both Rdepends and Depends isn't as far as I'm aware part of any EAPI currently (Correct me if I'm wrong people). Rdepends are needed for the builds so you will often see either RDEPENDS=${DEPEND} or vice versa. If its not there then its more of a matter of accounting then anything. I would think, and correct me if I'm wrong again, that it would make sense that if you only have RDEPENDS or DEPEND, then those same applications are required in the runtime of the application. Does it need to be explicitly stated? So far the three package manager that I'm aware of all manage this fine. Those being portage, paludis, and pkgcore. If there are other package managers out there that might have issues Its a perfect example of a reason to be involved in the EAPI discussions to help define what is needed and where. So what I suggest to you is perhaps looking over the EAPI=0 draft documentation and proposing some additions and or modifications that benefit everyone (not just one person), as its designed to be a standard for anyone who makes use of ebuilds and beyond. http://dev.gentoo.org/~spb/pms.pdf Is the current form, but halcy0n is working on an updated version of it for the next council meeting. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFH2bL22ZWR0Jhg/EsRAkduAJsGBKKl5HgR5YXziPn9yOLbi5F5MwCfacIC b/aqsokP3A6JFJ7hO4LGNXY= =BGqi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list