From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D25E01389F5 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 2014 20:57:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 59B07E08AD; Sat, 15 Nov 2014 20:57:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60F59E0898 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 2014 20:57:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qg0-f46.google.com (mail-qg0-f46.google.com [209.85.192.46]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mattst88) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7F1DE34059E for ; Sat, 15 Nov 2014 20:57:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qg0-f46.google.com with SMTP id i50so13379982qgf.19 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 2014 12:57:47 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.229.104.3 with SMTP id m3mr21709288qco.0.1416085067645; Sat, 15 Nov 2014 12:57:47 -0800 (PST) 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 Received: by 10.229.128.7 with HTTP; Sat, 15 Nov 2014 12:57:27 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <5464CB80.3010908@gentoo.org> References: <54597A81.5050002@gentoo.org> <5464BAC3.1090908@gentoo.org> <5464CB80.3010908@gentoo.org> From: Matt Turner Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2014 12:57:27 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Implicit system dependency To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 6d2526f4-f365-40a2-a8cb-b69d229ebd6c X-Archives-Hash: f7cd3909dda26254098945df542413d5 On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 13/11/14 09:05 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> On 11/13/2014 05:30 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote: >>> >>> Suggested policy to get the ball rolling: >>> >>> In general, a package must explicitly depend upon what it >>> directly uses. However, to avoid ebuild complexity and developer >>> burden there are some exceptions. Packages that appear in the >>> base system set may be omitted from an ebuild's dependency list >>> in the following circumstances: >>> >>> * C compiler and runtime >> >> Specifically sys-devel/gcc and sys-libs/glibc (i.e. what's in >> @system), or just anything? >> > > I would sincerely hope that nothing in the tree explicitly requires > gcc as a C compiler. You say this, and then mention glibc in the next sentence. Glibc can only be built with gcc. :) > Glibc is a bit different, it may be necessary to explicitly depend on > it (or use the elibc_glibc flag) if the package can't work with the > libc alternatives, but ideally