Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC about another *DEPEND variable
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 19:55:30
Message-Id: 20060921195131.GG30105@seldon
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC about another *DEPEND variable by Alin Nastac
1 On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 08:15:48PM +0300, Alin Nastac wrote:
2 > Brian Harring wrote:
3 > > BDEPEND was actually a seperate proposal/idea, intention there was to
4 > > have that be the deps that *must* be CHOST (gcc would be an example);
5 > > bits that are used to actually build the pkg, not data it consumes in
6 > > building (headers would be data).
7 > >
8 > Well, until now I didn't thought at the build compatibility.
9 > My concern was only the runtime compatibility.
10 > > Meanwhile, for this I don't see the point in using a seperate metadata
11 > > key. Overload DEPEND and add a marker char that is used to indicate
12 > > that a particular dependency is 'binding', ie, it is linkage.
13 > >
14 > Lets suppose we use & as 'binding' dependency marker. What sense would
15 > DEPEND="&net-dialup/ppp" have in a context of an ebuild. It certainly
16 > don't specify the necessity of package rebuild whenever net-dialup/ppp
17 > version is changed.
18 >
19 > Unless you save the specific compatibility version of the net-dialup/ppp
20 > used by net-dialup/pptpd for building the package, I don't see how can
21 > it help me.
22 > Judging after /var/db/pkg content, I have no such information.
23
24 Any such implementation would require storing some extra data in the
25 vdb....
26
27 For this, would just walk the *DEPEND collecting 'binding'
28 dependencies, and storing their BINCOMPAT in a simple mapping.
29
30 ~harring