On 16:27 Tue 14 Jun , Brian Harring wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:08:54AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > And no, I don't think that Gentoo should fully support reduced-@system
> > builds, but there is no harm in making them more of a viable option.
>
> Personally... I think gentoo should
On Tue, 14 June 2011 Brian Harring wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:08:54AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Brian Harring wrote:
> > > The implicit system set dependency thing really, really needs to die;
> > > at the time of the rule, portage couldn't handle re
more thoughts as to why this is a bad idea ... how do you deal with runtime
library requirements which only the compiler knows about ? sys-devel/gcc
provides many runtime libraries such as libgcc_s.so. but whether the package
actually needs that at runtime may depend purely on the arch/abi, or
On Tuesday, June 14, 2011 19:27:47 Brian Harring wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:08:54AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Brian Harring wrote:
> > > The implicit system set dependency thing really, really needs to die;
> > > at the time of the rule, portage could
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:08:54AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Brian Harring wrote:
> > The implicit system set dependency thing really, really needs to die;
> > at the time of the rule, portage couldn't handle resolving graphs of
> > that sort. ?PM resolvers for
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Brian Harring wrote:
> The implicit system set dependency thing really, really needs to die;
> at the time of the rule, portage couldn't handle resolving graphs of
> that sort. PM resolvers for gentoo are generally a fair bit saner
> now thus doing what you're sug
On 06/14/2011 03:54 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 11:41:54PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 06:14:06AM +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
>>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 05:58:56 +0200
>>> Jeroen Roovers wrote:
>>>
Judging from [1], a couple of thousands of ebui
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 11:41:54PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 06:14:06AM +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 05:58:56 +0200
> > Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> >
> > > Judging from [1], a couple of thousands of ebuilds DEPEND on
> > > sys-apps/sed, which is a s
On 06/13/2011 08:58 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> Judging from [1], a couple of thousands of ebuilds DEPEND on
> sys-apps/sed, which is a system package (in profiles/base/packages)
> since at least 2004. It boils down to some 2535 ebuilds, 1409 packages
> and 14 eclasses, some requiring a version as
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 06:14:06AM +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 05:58:56 +0200
> Jeroen Roovers wrote:
>
> > Judging from [1], a couple of thousands of ebuilds DEPEND on
> > sys-apps/sed, which is a system package (in profiles/base/packages)
> > since at least 2004. It boils
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 05:58:56 +0200
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> Judging from [1], a couple of thousands of ebuilds DEPEND on
> sys-apps/sed, which is a system package (in profiles/base/packages)
> since at least 2004. It boils down to some 2535 ebuilds, 1409 packages
> and 14 eclasses, some requiring
Judging from [1], a couple of thousands of ebuilds DEPEND on
sys-apps/sed, which is a system package (in profiles/base/packages)
since at least 2004. It boils down to some 2535 ebuilds, 1409 packages
and 14 eclasses, some requiring a version as high as 4.0.5, which went
stable in 2003.
What do you
12 matches
Mail list logo
