All the keywordreq bugs for extra tools (like bug #393175) say "will become a part of gentoolkit metapackage" Does it mean the original gentoolkit will be added to a new gentoolkit metapackage with all the extra tools or are you just adding RDEPENDS for the extra tools to the existing gentoolkit (as in gentoolkit-9999)? The !minimal? ( .. ) RDEPEND is in conflict with http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/devmanual.git;a=blobdiff;f=general-concepts/use-flags/text.xml;h=3ca3aff1ffd4d619edef4a01ca33569b47d01e83;hp=a1cf2c469028fc8f310f611d2ed5fa5e929e26f5;hb=8095994ddde25a75e99fd34dff81cf8522cd0ce4;hpb=1e0a9c0651d46f49974f45428afb46bf037d6e30 While I don't agree with the rule in general, in the gentoolkit case i think the RDEPENDS shouldn't be added. Thanks
No, I don't think so at this time. Although, changing gentoolkit into a meta package is a possibility. In that respect, this bug would be a duplicate of bug 391701. I was not aware flaggie was to be added to gentoolkit until reading the bug you listed just now.
I have had a couple of requests to have gentoolkit pull in external app-portage utilities. At this point, we are solely in a proof of concept stage so the only ebuild changes are occurring in the gentoolkit-9999 ebuild which is not keyworded for any architectures so we don't impact normal users. However, any external utilities that get added to a meta-ebuild will need to have the same keywords as the core utility in order for it to be useful. That's the reason for the keyword requests. My only real requirement for this work is that if a user does 'emerge gentoolkit', they get the core gentoolkit code at a minimum. Since we are in the proof of concept stage of this, I am open to any suggestions, comments, or concerns and you are free to ping me in IRC, send an email, etc. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 391701 ***