[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: gentoo-dev
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] enewuser/enewgroup getting their own eclass
From: Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2 () gentoo ! org>
Date: 2005-11-30 14:51:27
Message-ID: 1133362287.5990.16.camel () cgianelloni ! nuvox ! net
[Download RAW message or body]
On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 19:24 +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > I'm looking to minimize what is in a stage1 tarball, not increase it. I
> > would much prefer that we instead had a proper dependency tree, than
> > hacking around it. Applications that need to add users on Linux
> > *should* DEPEND on shadow. They should not rely on it being already
> > present.
>
> and when we move the user management hacks out of eclasses and into
> portage itself, where do you think shadow will end up ? in stage1 is
> my guess
Well, apparently with shadow in packages.build we can no longer build a
stage1 tarball from a stage3. We also cannot bootstrap, as both of
these tasks strip a large number of USE flags. As soon as I removed
shadow from packages.build, my builds resumed working.
> i wouldnt qualify shadow as a part of a proper dependency tree since
> it's the ebuild itself that requires it, not the package
It is required by our ebuild to build the package. I'd call that a
dependency. If you want to call it a dependency of the eclass or
portage or whatever, I don't care. It is still a dependency in the
dependency tree.
> > Plus, your solution does not work retroactively to repair
> > issues with the 2005.0, 2005.1, or 2005.1-r1 stages, while mine does.
>
> tell users to stop using stage[12], you're already going that route :p
That still will not fix the issue.
--
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux
["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic