From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org)
by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
(envelope-from <gentoo-dev+bounces-45603-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1QGdm3-000215-PD
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 01 May 2011 21:01:51 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C32FF1C0AC;
Sun, 1 May 2011 21:01:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-vw0-f53.google.com (mail-vw0-f53.google.com [209.85.212.53])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21D371C07B
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 1 May 2011 21:01:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by vws13 with SMTP id 13so4880528vws.40
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 01 May 2011 14:01:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
bh=qDx69zGBmM5ivDge4fwGFYYDNBRLsvshJEYgwXhSWZQ=;
b=G7/xfoF8Glxt8k5vM+/F01a92dDxxgEsT877QnEmpSvGdNsAzRIJWjazYOUwl/3poZ
vHowR0+vQuJuSRpheZ3Zo2J9cOu917bGkZJ/QdTCLIv+LoqGohkmoGYxU1aOizXT4Pa4
yJ0NvaH3U3EVd1wTPWJEBHfGIRpzAkBFysEF0=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
b=W8so9PYtbNDUN6bt5o+lxKz3H0lnR/bLK5mlQxsI5qLWQZlpWWdOytk6VRAcxD5SKv
qfpXjiArmu6jRApKNz27jRW4BsXEitGrWIJnNsDzP5f3NkQKywLRe/RrZ32vWeqb3ior
zHU2Hp0F1usj641Jk6Eq6U6Wv1zZd8l6KNlVA=
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.45.134 with SMTP id e6mr2138052vcf.55.1304283672343; Sun,
01 May 2011 14:01:12 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: kolmax94@gmail.com
Received: by 10.220.70.206 with HTTP; Sun, 1 May 2011 14:01:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20110501214137.1e0414f8@googlemail.com>
References: <BANLkTi=t6R94cQNi5rWVwBpKYzL24adG2Q@mail.gmail.com>
<20110501214137.1e0414f8@googlemail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 01:01:12 +0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: bRQq7WNvNoIklBiL6BwnFFnGPLk
Message-ID: <BANLkTik8JCojYeay5h4dALciOWPyn1O_5w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Virtual for tftp server
From: Maxim Koltsov <maksbotan@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Archives-Salt:
X-Archives-Hash: 931af23150cf8235708a7d6e1cb846cd
2011/5/2 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com>:
> If it doesn't care about what the tftp server is, presumably that means
> that the package itself doesn't actually use the tftp server (and if
> it did call the tftp server, it would need to know the syntax for each
> individual package, so it wouldn't be a virtual). So why would it be a
> DEPEND?
I meant RDEPEND, sorry.
> Since suggested dependencies don't exist yet, what's wrong with just
> elogging a message suggesting the user install a tftp server of their
> choice?
I think this is uncomfortable for user.