On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 10:41:57 +0100
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Use PDEPEND.
PDEPEND has a different meaning, and isn't suitable for runtime
dependencies.
> While I like labels they need to be discussed more on-list as well as
> on bugzilla (it's not reasonable for you simply to advert
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 18:38:06 +0200
> "Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I don't know what the general use of pkg_preinst is, but in
>> pkg_postinst the package itself should be runnable, so its RDEPENDS
>> should be installed and usable at this point.
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sun, 20 Apr 2008
22:17:27 -0700:
> I guess the RDEPEND+DEPEND case would save an ebuild dev the work of
> specifying the COMMON_DEPEND list, but other than that, I can't think of
> any benefits. It would force both
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 18:53:27 + (UTC)
Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems to me that at least for current EAPIs, RDEPEND simply cannot
> be depended upon during pkg_*inst without breaking things. I can't
> see a way around that.
But DEPEND can't either.
The point is, one of the two w
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sat, 19 Apr 2008
06:33:00 +0100:
> On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 22:27:21 -0700
> Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> My interpretation is pkg_* counts as runtime (I can imagine a package
>> wanting to run itself at
