On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Mike Frysinger <[email protected]> wrote: > it is a problem. not all profiles use "coreutils" ... they provide > replacement > packages. busybox is just one example. the bsd/prefix guys go in even > weirder > directions.
Yup - hence my point about coreutils not being a good one to include unless you virtualized it, which probably is more than we'd really want to do for a system package. > > DEPEND usage is useless cruft to the point of absurdity. > > RDEPEND is much less common as then you're really only talking about the > random shell scripts. i'd argue still though that it still doesn't make sense > considering a system can hardly boot without "coreutils". and if you are in a > situation where you have such a reduced install that it can, the existing > @system semantics work for you. Again, you're using coreutils as an example, and that doesn't seem like something that would be much of a value-add to place in RDEPEND. However, if you had a package that required openssh, that would seem to be a much better candidate for an RDEPEND, since it is trivial to boot a system without openssh installed despite it being in system. Openssh is obviously a bit of a contrived example in the opposite direction, but it is in @system. Basically what I'm advocating is that somebody shouldn't have to defend their actions if they include something from @system in *DEPEND. Future maintainers are welcome to undo the work of previous maintainers as always. @system packages in *DEPEND should not be considered a bug (as long as they're right). Rich
