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 of depend atoms. R=(runtime) not Buildtime > | for the NNth time. Till then please focus your efforts on something > | useful that does not break other peoples systems or projects. > > Given the choice of possibly causing minor inconvenience to the embedded > people or outright breaking the tree for every single user, the sane > option is to keep the tree working. If embedded has a requirement for > better DEPEND specifications, why don't they start working on a GLEP?
Embedded GLEP eh? You two are the ones trying to distort the meaning of RDEPEND= simply because the depclean is broken for the cases you make. Where is your GLEP for this? Where is a real like example? I'm sure you can dig back in the tree and show us something you had to fix in the tree if this is such a problem as you were asserting last night. While your at it please go ahead and show us the code that resolves the case for everybody so this silly thread can end. I've already busted by ass and fixed the vital broken packages and eclasses which INCORRECTLY included linux-headers etc in RDEPEND= we already worked with releng and other groups to ensure that things function properly, so heh no GLEP is needed from embedded as things are/were functioning correctly. -- solar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
