On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:45:38 -0400 Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Couldn't the ebuild be wrong? For example, if the package manager > uses fancy-unzip-replacement to unzip packages, but the ebuild > depends on unzip, then wouldn't it fail? It seems like we're trying > to have ebuilds DEPEND on something that in reality the package > manager is doing.
For current EAPIs, we pretty much mandate that 'unzipping .zip files is done using app-arch/unzip'. It's not ideal. For future EAPIs, we can have the package manager define super-magic/thing-i-use-to-unzip. > Shouldn't the package manager depend on unzip instead? If circular > references are the problem, then wouldn't it be better to find a > better way to handle circular references (ie more specific ways of > defining dependencies)? Having the package manager depend upon things like 7z for the two packages in the tree that use it isn't sane. One could argue that having package manager support for extracting 7z is also not sane, of course, but that's something we're stuck with in current EAPIs. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
