-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 13/11/14 10:17 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > 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. > > 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 [...]
... we shouldn't be depending on the specific libc implementation -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAlRky8wACgkQ2ugaI38ACPBEEwD+JmErQK2aUPcYsZY6e55lWYfO oenrhAK3S4bKX8CdOWoA/1NKBesQnsv6e8KEwPEQrHlQO3DcCA/DVVWPWjUSVCjo =+Web -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
