Re: [gentoo-dev] Unified DEPENDENCIES concept

[Ciaran McCreesh]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Hash: SHA1



On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 10:50:40 -0400

Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote:

> On 07/09/12 07:45 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > [ Snip! ] Note also how the foo-related things, the bar-related
> > things etc cannot be grouped together by their fooness or barness,
> > but are rather grouped by their DEPENDness and RDEPENDness.
> >
> > [ Snip! ]
> >
> > So here's what DEPENDENCIES solves:
> >
> > Firstly, it allows developers to group together foo-related
> > dependencies and bar-related dependencies by their fooness and
> > barness, not by their role. [ Snip! ] *** It does it by replacing
> > the concept of "a package has build *** dependencies, run
> > dependencies, etc" with "a package has *** dependencies, and each
> > dependency is applicable at one or more of *** build time, run tme,
> > etc".
>
> And this is the specific point that I don't like about DEPENDENCIES
> versus *DEPEND.  As a developer, I personally find it much more
> straight-forward to fill in the deps needed for each role, rather than
> specifying the role(s) that each dep will play a part in.


Have you tried doing both? You may find you're just arguing from

familiarity, and that after having worked the other way for a few

packages, that the advantages become clearer.



The wide-spread use of hacks like COMMON_DEPEND are a pretty strong

indication that people *do* think in something closer to a

DEPENDENCIES-like fashion. In particular, I find it hard to believe

that you think "ok, so I've got a build dependency upon

>=cat/pkg-2.3[foo]" and then independently work out "ok, I've got a run
>dependency upon >=cat/pkg-2.3[foo]".


- -- 

Ciaran McCreesh

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)



iEYEARECAAYFAlBKC6cACgkQ96zL6DUtXhG94gCgmXP0C+nAItSnCTIMoeJHzqzK

AyYAniXFZR5mJrBtuGI10dWt0nuJFhwc

=vZBn

-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----