On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 08:56:45PM +0200, Maurice van der Pot wrote: > On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 01:45:20PM -0500, Brian D. Harring wrote: > > Not tenuable > > > > What you're effectivelly suggesting is that portage stomp ahead and, > > hit a failure, try and figure out what atom would fix the failure, > > retry, wash rinse repeat. > > No, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about something to help an > ebuild writer. If I'm emerging my newly written ebuild and it works, I > still may have missed a few build dependencies. This situation would > probably result in a lot of ebuilds with incomplete build dependencies > and a lot of work for the cross-compiling people. By using a tool like > I described, I can see what I still need to add to the list. Best solution in my opinion for such a tool is abuse of binpkgs + chroot for testing, but that's beyond portage's focus, should be an external tool.
A tool to do analysis of a package/ebuild and discern the BDEPEND's I could see, just thought you were suggesting it be defacto on the fly thing :) ~harring
pgpwV792HyKXy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
