On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:06:06 +0000 (UTC) Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Michał Górny posted on Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:01:09 +0200 as excerpted: > > > On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 00:12:53 +0000 (UTC) > > Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > > > >> Various people have in fact expressed a desire to REDUCE the > >> number of packages in @system, for various reasons including both > >> the parallel merge penalty and the bloat on reduced systems. In > >> practice, there's not a lot of positive movement on actually > >> reducing @system, but at minimum, unless there's *NO* other choice > >> and in this case there clearly is, we shouldn't be ADDING packages > >> to @system. > >> > >> For that reason, while I do see the reason why some would like > >> pkg-config added to @system, the whole idea's pretty much a > >> non-starter > > > But you're aware that cost of pkgconf is very little? > > Not really, when it's a step in the opposite direction from an > intended goal. The first step toward any goal is to stop going > backward, and that's exactly what this would be. We need a smaller > @system, not a larger one, and while the add would be easy, undoing > it years later when it's yet another bit of the tangled web woven, > would be *MUCH* more difficult. Just don't do it; don't go backward; > don't add to the problem instead of reducing it. So please introduce virtual/compiler, virtual/linker, virtual/posix-system, virtual/sratatata and add them to DEPEND of every single ebuild. I believe that the more important direction here is to make development *easier*, not harder. Adding the same DEPENDs over and over again to every single package is at least frustrating. Similarly frustrating would be if those 'reduced systems' had to rebuild gcc every time they wanted to compile something... oh wait, they would have to bootstrap it every time. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
