excerpted below, on  Sun, 12 Oct 2008 19:04:21 +0200:

> I see packages like bison, flex, perl or sed in the system set. And i
> also see ebuilds depending on them. I also heard from Peter Volkov (pva)
> that there where discussions about removing different packages from the
> system set. So now my question is:
> Should we depend on all system packages? Should we depend on some
> packages, because they could be removed? If yes, which ones? Or should
> we leave the system packages out completly?

The idea has been to reduce the system set, but packages coming out of it 
will of necessity need to be widely known.

Meanwhile, in general, the system set should be reasonable to rely on in 
general.  The cases where system packages are in depends should generally 
be limited to those in which it's necessary to resolve circular 
dependencies, with the help of USE=build and boostrap, or to other 
special cases (like a dependency on a specific USE flag on a system 
package, or where not all profiles may depend on the same system 
packages, etc).

IOW, "normal" packages shouldn't need to specify "normal" dependencies on 
system packages.  At least, that's how I've read the discussion I've seen 
to date.

Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Reply via email to