| 1 |
On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 14:56:37 +0000 |
| 2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 09:47:35 -0500 |
| 5 |
> Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > On 03/02/2017 09:24 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 7 |
> > >> |
| 8 |
> > >> In other words, the ":=" only does something special in RDEPEND. |
| 9 |
> > >> That makes sense when you think of it as meaning "the thing will |
| 10 |
> > >> break" rather than "I want to do a rebuild." The only reason it's |
| 11 |
> > >> not an error to put them in DEPEND is because it would annoy |
| 12 |
> > >> everyone doing DEPEND="${RDEPEND}". |
| 13 |
> > > |
| 14 |
> > > Portage has interesting behavior for ":=" in DEPEND: it varies |
| 15 |
> > > depending on your "with-bdeps" setting. |
| 16 |
> > > |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > This is why we can't have nice things. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Actually you can't have nice things because the labels proposal was |
| 21 |
> voted down for "being invented by the wrong people". |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Don't get too much into conspiracy theories, I think it has been |
| 24 |
dismissed because it would require rewriting every dependency and |
| 25 |
there has not been any portage implementation afaik. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Instead of that, people seem to prefer having [A-Z]DEPEND :) |
Archives