On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 11:05:23 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius <[email protected]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 31/08/12 10:56 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > Michał Górny <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> I believe that the more important direction here is to make > >> development *easier*, not harder. Adding the same DEPENDs over > >> and over again to every single package is at least frustrating. > >> Similarly frustrating would be if those 'reduced systems' had to > >> rebuild gcc every time they wanted to compile something... oh > >> wait, they would have to bootstrap it every time. > >> > > > > you would achieve it better by adding pkgconfig to DEPEND in > > eutils.eclass than putting it in @system since in the latter case > > it would also be a RDEPEND of everything basically > > > > And realistically that's where the DEPEND should be anyways, IMO -- > appended by the eclass where the function is that uses it. If this > means prune_libtool_files() gets separated out of eutils and put in > its own eclass (so that all the eutils inheritors don't suddenly need > virtual/pkgconfig unnecessarily), then so be it. I wasn't referring to the function at the moment but at the overall fact that practically any C/C++ package depending on any non-standard library practically should depend on pkg-config. A library not providing pkg-config file is simply broken. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
