On Monday 07 August 2006 13:36, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Sunday 06 August 2006 00:26, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > and i'm on the opposite side where implicit RDEPEND should be clean:
>
> Why? I for one consider explicit dependencies much more clean.
i prefer to make the common behavior the default
On Sunday 06 August 2006 00:26, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> and i'm on the opposite side where implicit RDEPEND should be clean:
Why? I for one consider explicit dependencies much more clean. If Portage at
some point should distinct between dependencies defined in ebuilds and
eclasses, we'd need a d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday 05 August 2006 17:29, Zac Medico wrote:
>> I'm not satisfied with the current implicit RDEPEND behavior either. I
>> propose that we make repoman force explicit definition of RDEPEND.
>
> and i'm on the opposite si
On Saturday 05 August 2006 17:29, Zac Medico wrote:
> I'm not satisfied with the current implicit RDEPEND behavior either. I
> propose that we make repoman force explicit definition of RDEPEND.
and i'm on the opposite side where implicit RDEPEND should be clean:
- eclass and ebuilds have their ow
