On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 06:19:01PM -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 02:00:24AM +0200, Sven Wegener wrote: > [snip] > Could you possibly split the stuff into two files? > one for RDEPEND.only and one for DEPEND.only?
http://dev.gentoo.org/~swegener/qa/depend-mismatches-DEPEND http://dev.gentoo.org/~swegener/qa/depend-mismatches-RDEPEND > I see a lot more FP for RDEPEND.only. > > Many of the RDEPEND.only are correct, as the packages are just scripts > that call other binaries to do their work. On the flipside, there are a > lot of packages that only need something to build properly (eg > sys-cluster/torque needs sys-apps/ed, and dev-libs/openssl has a build > system that needs perl). Yeah, plugins are often RDEPEND-only and binary packages have an empty DEPEND. Those are special packages. I could whitelist *-plugins/* for RDEPEND that would remove them from the list. I see about 30 packages in the list that use them, maybe a good thing to whitelist for RDEPEND. I added sys-apps/ed for sys-cluster/torque and dev-lang/perl for dev-libs/openssl to the whitelist. > I suspect that you'd end up with a massive whitelist if we tried to > catch everything. The whitelist is already quite large. I don't want to catch everything that should be whitelisted. FPs that affect a lot of packages and can easy be whitelisted either general or by the means of eclass usage are good. > For the moment however, I can offer some general items: > anything inheriting php-ext*eclass is correct with DEPEND of dev-php/php but > and RDEPEND of virtual/php. Added. Sven -- Sven Wegener Gentoo Developer http://www.gentoo.org/
pgphcU8dSAryy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
