On Saturday 24 February 2007 00:49, Daiajo Tibdixious wrote: [snip: good info re: making a dependency optional]
Also, make that, when the use flag is disabled, the package refuses to link against xprintproto. Otherwise, you can have a situation where xprintproto is unmerged by --depclean, but xdpyinfo is using it dispite the -xprint USE flag. E.g. xprintproto is merged as a dependency of X xdpyinfo is merged (-xprint), but finds the appropriate header and links against xprintproto. X is removed. emerge --depclean thinks it can remove xprintproto, since xdpyinfo doesn't depend on it, despite being linked against it. > The compile was clean, the baseline/regression test (rudimentary) worked > well. If the package comes with a testsuite, make sure to run that against both the old and new versions and hopefully you get similar results. > So my question is: is this enough to submit as a bug/feature request? Absolutely. I've seen feature requests with much less info that eventually found a sympathetic developer. > I ask because I've submitted quite a few bugs and gotten unpolite > responses on occassion, left out obvious information, and generally > looked like the dumb user I'm tring not to be. Unpolite responses "just happen". The developers and bug-wrangler don't act with a single mind, so the unpolite ones aren't "checked" by the polite ones. In any case, I think you've done most of the work, so it shouldn't be too hard to get your feature-request approved. *DO* give your emerge --info, although it may not seem relevant. *DO* make the bug as a feature request, and set it's priority appropriately. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.org/ \_/ New GPG Key! Old key expires 2007-03-25. Upgrade NOW!
pgpXRrJNJLUgK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
