Ryan Hill wrote:
> Cool, that's exactly what I was looking for.
>
> thanks ;d
Yeah me too, thanks for a straight reply! ;)
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 03:14:57 -0500 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| As an aside, If you are unsure in a given situation feel free to ask
| someone about it. Worse case you (put an extra dep in|leave out a
| dep); both are easily repairable.
No, worst case you go and break anyone trying t
Jason Stubbs wrote:
There's ways to manage this complexity, such as putting the dependencies into
autotools' RDEPEND (if it can be considered correct) or by using
meta-packages. However, your point is against requiring that packages _must_
specify all system dependencies. While I personally
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 16:41:40 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Sunday 17 December 2006 16:04, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 15:10:57 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| > wrote:
| > | I've tried to be objective here so if my viewpoint isn't obvious
| > | I'll
On Sunday 17 December 2006 16:04, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 15:10:57 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | I've tried to be objective here so if my viewpoint isn't obvious I'll
> | state it outright. I think all packages should depend on every
> | package that they
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:21:36 -0500 Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| > It's quite simple. You don't do it unless you are fully aware of the
| > consequences. If you have to ask, you aren't fully aware of the
| > consequences so you mustn't do it.
| >
|
| Which c
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:21:36 -0500 Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| > It's quite simple. You don't do it unless you are fully aware of the
| > consequences. If you have to ask, you aren't fully aware of the
| > consequences so you mustn't do it.
| >
|
| Which clearly doesn't answer Rya
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 15:10:57 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| I've tried to be objective here so if my viewpoint isn't obvious I'll
| state it outright. I think all packages should depend on every
| package that they need to build and/or run. Whether this is done
| explicitly or with
On Sunday 17 December 2006 10:27, Alec Warner wrote:
> If your package is 'not important' meaning it will never be in 'system' for
> any profile, you should not depend on anything in 'system', as stuff in
> system should already be installed in a given (sane) configuration.
Except if the package i
Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hrm, I thought I wrote about this a while ago but I don't see it on
> archives.g.o so lets try again.
>
> > If your package is 'not important' meaning it will never be in
> > 'system' for any profile, you should not depend on anything in
> > 'system',
Ryan Hill wrote:
Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If it's universal, then why isn't it written somewhere? After all
this, we *still* haven't gotten an answer to why some packages
outside of the system target are depending on zlib. Is this a bug? If
not, what's the reason it's there? Let's
Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's quite simple. You don't do it unless you are fully aware of the
> > consequences. If you have to ask, you aren't fully aware of the
> > consequences so you mustn't do it.
>
> That's a flawed argument. Not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 12:46:30 -0600 Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> | Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> | > > Could you spell out that exception clause, please?
>> | >
>> | > It d
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 12:46:30 -0600 Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > > Could you spell out that exception clause, please?
> | >
> | > It doesn't translate well into words, but we'll go with something
> | > like "Unl
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 12:46:30 -0600 Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | Can we skip the sekrit rulez crap and just spell it out? Really,
> | how does this help anyone?
>
> It's quite simple. You don't do it unless you are fully aware of the
> c
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 12:46:30 -0600 Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > > Could you spell out that exception clause, please?
| >
| > It doesn't translate well into words, but we'll go with something
| > like "Unless you know exactly why the rule is
Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Could you spell out that exception clause, please?
>
> It doesn't translate well into words, but we'll go with something
> like "Unless you know exactly why the rule is there, understand
> fully the implications of breaking it, and know why it's a
>
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 11:35:34 +
Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 11:03:18 +
> Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Could you spell out that exception clause, please?
>
> It doesn't translate well into words, but we'll go with something like
> "Unless
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 11:03:18 +
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Could you spell out that exception clause, please?
It doesn't translate well into words, but we'll go with something like
"Unless you know exactly why the rule is there, understand fully the imp
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org m
Stephen Bennett wrote:
>> It's seems to be needed sometimes b/c it does change the order of
>> generated deplist(emerge -e world). AFAIK some packages dep on zlib
>> b/c of that.
>
> If you don't know about the unwritten yet near universal exception
> clause then you shouldn't be invoking it.
>
C
20 matches
Mail list logo
