What's the right thing to do with an ebuild's HOMEPAGE variable if there
is not any homepage? Different packages have different approaches for
this; some don't have any HOMEPAGE line (dev-util/cdecl), some set
HOMEPAGE to the empty string (app-i18n/kon2), possibly with a comment
following it (app-i
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 21:37:03 -0700
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The consequences of the two sides are like this, from what I can
> see:
>
> 1) Headers are run-time and build-time deps
> 2) Headers are build-time deps only
Imho, that case fall under the concept of "exported deps" i
On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 21:37 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Spider (D.m.D. Lj.) wrote:
> | If your package, libFoo, installs .h files that directly require header
> | files from libBar, then you have a Runtime dependency on libBar, not
> | only
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 21:37:03 -0700 Donnie Berkholz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Now, the other side of the story. It's not true runtime dependence
| because it's not required for programs to run, only to compile. And
| the way I see it, things required for programs to compile are by
| definition DE
On Tuesday 25 October 2005 01:45, Ferris McCormick wrote:
> Well, maybe so. However that missing '<' is kind of important
Indeed - and it has nothing to do with modular X. There are other ! , and when
> playing with X-modular, the portage output really looks like the modular
> packages are blocki
Massimiliano Bellomo wrote:
Hi,
i've this problem with emerge -uD world:
These are the packages that I would merge, in order:
Calculating world dependencies ...done!
[blocks B ] x11-proto/kbproto-1.0-r1)
[blocks B ] [blocks B ] x11-proto/xextproto-7.0)
[blocks B ]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 21:37:03 -0700 Donnie Berkholz
| <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| | Now, the other side of the story. It's not true runtime dependence
| | because it's not required for programs to run, only to compile. And
| |
On Tuesday 25 October 2005 07:09, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 21:37:03 -0700 Donnie Berkholz
> |
> | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | | Now, the other side of the story. It's not true runtime dependence
> | | because it's not required for programs to run, o
Donnie Berkholz wrote: [Mon Oct 24 2005, 11:37:03PM CDT]
> Now, the other side of the story. It's not true runtime dependence
> because it's not required for programs to run, only to compile. And the
> way I see it, things required for programs to compile are by definition
> DEPEND rather than RDEP
Grant Goodyear wrote:
At the same time, I'm suppose that including header files by default is
not such a good thing for the embedded folks.
Exactly. And hacking around that with some USE flags for embedded just
says, to me, that we can't make a decision: we'll enforce this "usable
for compili
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 07:09:03 -0700 Donnie Berkholz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| I disagree. You shouldn't expect to be able to compile things against
| it unless all DEPENDs are installed. The whole point of DEPEND is to
| be able to do things like this; remove all things not necessary for
| your p
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 09:28:17 + Donnie Berkholz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| I'm still failing to see how headers have anything to do with runtime
| issues -- it should be people's responsibility to ensure they have
| the necessary headers if they're compiling things that require them.
| And co
Donnie Berkholz wrote: [Tue Oct 25 2005, 04:28:17AM CDT]
> I'm still failing to see how headers have anything to do with runtime
> issues -- it should be people's responsibility to ensure they have the
> necessary headers if they're compiling things that require them. And
> compiling means DEPEN
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
RDEPEND lists the things that are needed to use a package once it is
installed.
Maybe RDEPEND is insufficient to properly describe a library package. I
see a big difference between using and compiling against a library. I
realize you need to compile against it to us
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 11:16:54 -0600 Joshua Baergen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| >RDEPEND lists the things that are needed to use a package once it is
| >installed.
|
| Maybe RDEPEND is insufficient to properly describe a library
| package. I see a big difference between usi
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Well yes, we already know we need a few dozen more new dependency
atoms. But we're dealing with "what we can use currently" here, not
some hypothetical future situation.
Fair enough. One possible solution is to use some agreed-upon fooDEPEND
within the current ebuilds
Joshua Baergen wrote:
Fair enough. One possible solution is to use some agreed-upon
fooDEPEND within the current ebuilds and simply set for the time being:
DEPEND="${fooDEPEND} {DEPEND}"
Oh, and I didn't say this, but the point would be that if/when Portage
handles these situations changin
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 11:16:54 -0600 Joshua Baergen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| >RDEPEND lists the things that are needed to use a package once it is
| >installed.
|
| Maybe RDEPEND is insufficient to properly describe a library
| package. I see a
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
See, if libfoo-1.0's headers don't need (say) boost, but libfoo-1.1's
headers do, with what you're proposing you'd have to go through and
update the dependencies of every single package using libfoo.
That's true, and it's why I brought up the cascading DEPEND bit in the
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:44:03 -0400 Alec Joseph Warner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| So define what you need to meet your goals, hell define your goals
| and agree on them ( or at least a subset ).
The goal is simple: have a working tree right now.
Any new dependency atom stuff would need to be at
On Tue, 2005-10-25 at 17:39 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 07:09:03 -0700 Donnie Berkholz
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | I disagree. You shouldn't expect to be able to compile things against
> | it unless all DEPENDs are installed. The whole point of DEPEND is to
> | be able
I think "none" could be the better workaround imho.
On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 09:12:42AM +0200, Harald van D??k wrote:
> What's the right thing to do with an ebuild's HOMEPAGE variable if there
> is not any homepage? Different packages have different approaches for
> this; some don't have any HOMEPA
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marco Morales wrote:
> I think "none" could be the better workaround imho.
I vote for "none" too :) It clearly states, that HOMEPAGE is missing.
Blank HOMEPAGE is misleading.
- --
Krzysiek 'Nelchael' Pawlik
GPG:0xBC51
I don't suffer from insanity
On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 08:35:20PM +0200, Krzysiek Pawlik wrote:
> Marco Morales wrote:
> > I think "none" could be the better workaround imho.
>
> I vote for "none" too :) It clearly states, that HOMEPAGE is missing.
> Blank HOMEPAGE is misleading.
how can a blank HOMEPAGE be misleading ?
-mike
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:55:36 -0400 solar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Please do not put words in my mouth. I've already asserted to you
| several times that the definition of RDEPEND= is unclear and that we
| do infact need a new set of depend atoms. R=(runtime) not Buildtime
| for the NNth time. T
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> how can a blank HOMEPAGE be misleading ?
Page is unknown, too lazy to search, what does empty HOMEPAGE exactly mean?
- --
Krzysiek 'Nelchael' Pawlik
GPG:0xBC51
Lottery: A tax on people who are bad at math.
-BEGIN PGP S
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 20:35:20 +0200 Krzysiek Pawlik
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Marco Morales wrote:
| > I think "none" could be the better workaround imho.
|
| I vote for "none" too :) It clearly states, that HOMEPAGE is missing.
| Blank HOMEPAGE is misleading.
Then any automated tools will need
On Tue, 2005-25-10 at 20:16 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:55:36 -0400 solar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Please do not put words in my mouth. I've already asserted to you
> | several times that the definition of RDEPEND= is unclear and that we
> | do infact need a new set
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 21:20:41 +0200 Krzysiek Pawlik
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Mike Frysinger wrote:
| > how can a blank HOMEPAGE be misleading ?
|
| Page is unknown, too lazy to search, what does empty HOMEPAGE exactly
| mean?
That there is no HOMEPAGE, in the same way that an empty DEPEND mean
On Tue, 2005-10-25 at 20:22 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 20:35:20 +0200 Krzysiek Pawlik
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Marco Morales wrote:
> | > I think "none" could be the better workaround imho.
> |
> | I vote for "none" too :) It clearly states, that HOMEPAGE is missin
On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 09:36:02PM +0200, Spider (D.m.D. Lj.) wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-10-25 at 20:22 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 20:35:20 +0200 Krzysiek Pawlik
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > | Marco Morales wrote:
> > | > I think "none" could be the better workaround imh
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
For "unknown" or "too lazy" cases, the package shouldn't be in the tree.
Too bad reality doesn't match.
--
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 Operational Co-Lead
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [Tue Oct 25 2005, 02:22:25PM CDT]
> Then any automated tools will need to be told explicitly that "none" is
> something special. With all HOMEPAGE entries being fully qualified URIs,
> you can just do something like for h in HOMEPAGE ; do firefox "$h" & ;
> done , which works
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:51:26 -0500 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| but no other var has an actual check of that sort- to do the check
| would require mangling ebuild.sh also, which I think is kind of daft.
Hrm. KEYWORDS.missing, LICENSE.missing, DESCRIPTION.missing and
SLOT.missing are
On Tue, 2005-10-25 at 20:16 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:55:36 -0400 solar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Please do not put words in my mouth. I've already asserted to you
> | several times that the definition of RDEPEND= is unclear and that we
> | do infact need a new set
On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 08:57:59PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:51:26 -0500 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | portage substitutes "" when metadata keys are unset during depends
> | export. Seems kind of pointless requiring an empty var
> |
> | to do the chec
I'm read ebuild HOWTO but not found solution for this:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=110171
How obtain USE flags from emerged apps? But when i'm changed flags end
emerge -vp package, emerge report about change in flags and highlited
flag at green.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing lis
On Tuesday 25 October 2005 21:54, Simon Stelling wrote:
> Too bad reality doesn't match.
The list of ebuilds without homepage is indeed quite shocking. When you look
at our ebuild howto¹, the variables SLOT, LICENSE, KEYWORDS, DESCRIPTION,
SRC_URI, HOMEPAGE and IUSE are mandatory, so all these ~
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 16:05:00 -0400 solar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| You two are the ones trying to distort the meaning of RDEPEND=
| simply because the depclean is broken for the cases you make.
Not at all. The 'R' in RDEPEND means 'needed after the compile is
done'. However, for the sake of ke
39 matches
Mail list logo
