New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
app-text/xmlto: EAPI 7 #19593
app-text/xmlto: EAPI 7 #19593
Conversation
Pull Request assignmentSubmitter: @vaukai app-text/xmlto: @gentoo/proxy-maint (maintainer needed) Linked bugsIn order to force reassignment and/or bug reference scan, please append Docs: Code of Conduct ● Copyright policy (expl.) ● Devmanual ● GitHub PRs ● Proxy-maint guide |
text? ( || ( virtual/w3m www-client/elinks www-client/links www-client/lynx ) ) | ||
latex? ( dev-texlive/texlive-formatsextra )" | ||
# We only depend on flex when we patch the imput lexer. | ||
DEPEND="${RDEPEND}" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
A lot/all of these are probably actually BDEPEND?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Are we changing it then? (i.e. do not define DEPEND or define it to be a small subset?)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For BDEPEND, from a quick strace and outside base set (e.g. excuding sed/which), flex, m4, util-linux, and pkgconfig were called regardless of USE.
Not that I really checked this package in-depth, but it been bothering me for a while and glad someone is looking at it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actually scratch pkg-config, that one's not needed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
When running
ebuild xmlto-0.0.28-r4.ebuild clean configure | grep 'checking for'
would all that output be BDEPEND?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not all of them are actually ran, it just checks if they exist.. which I guess mean they may need to be in normal DEPEND to be detected :| But again, most of those are base set and sed/bash/which seem weird to define.
Edit: anyway I'll stop rambling, haven't checked the package closely enough to answer what it needs
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Are we changing it then? (i.e. do not define DEPEND or define it to be a small subset?)
Sorry here. I am still lost with the {B,R,}dependencies stuff. Only removed some Implicit System Dependencies for now according to devmanual.
Need to find a reliable method to distinguish the runtime and build dependencies.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Tested and could not find any of those dependencies being BDEPEND. None of them needed for compilation.
Removed base set packages from the list.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We actually should keep @ system stuff but no need for sed/Bash/anything specified by PMS. I'll make a note to update the devmanual to be more explicit.
Having @ system elements in there means we can parallelise emerges better.
Pull request CI reportReport generated at: 2021-02-22 10:35 UTC There are existing issues already. Please look into the report to make sure none of them affect the packages in question: |
Pull request CI reportReport generated at: 2021-02-22 13:15 UTC There are existing issues already. Please look into the report to make sure none of them affect the packages in question: |
Pull request CI reportReport generated at: 2021-02-23 11:40 UTC There are existing issues already. Please look into the report to make sure none of them affect the packages in question: |
Pull request CI reportReport generated at: 2021-02-23 11:55 UTC There are existing issues already. Please look into the report to make sure none of them affect the packages in question: |
Pull request CI reportReport generated at: 2021-02-23 12:25 UTC There are existing issues already. Please look into the report to make sure none of them affect the packages in question: |
Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/757576 Adding www-client/links as an alternative to virtual/w3m Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/726156 Package-Manager: Portage-3.0.13, Repoman-3.0.2 Signed-off-by: Volkmar W. Pogatzki <gentoo@pogatzki.net>
Pull request CI reportReport generated at: 2021-02-23 13:30 UTC There are existing issues already. Please look into the report to make sure none of them affect the packages in question: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks! Minor style changes made in b3a2f4f.
Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/757576
Adding www-client/links as an alternative to virtual/w3m
Closes https://bugs.gentoo.org/726156
Package-Manager: Portage-3.0.13, Repoman-3.0.2
Signed-off-by: Volkmar W. Pogatzki gentoo@pogatzki.net