On Sunday 11 January 2004 14:24, Paul de Vrieze wrote: > On Sunday 11 January 2004 06:01, Spider wrote: > > Separating UDEPEND only to get DEPEND more finegrained isn't a good > > thing though. I really don't see the need for an extra thing just to > > unpack but not to compile. > > I agree with Spider here, the only thing that I see as missing in the > dependency scheme is a good way to specify optional runtime packages. > (Packages that will be used if present, but that are not needed at compile > time or installation time)
Not portage's job, imho. If you want the user to know about optional deps, just add an einfo in pkg_postinst. Tal -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
