| 1 |
On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 16:25:54 -0500 |
| 2 |
Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On 03/02/2017 04:06 PM, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> |
| 5 |
> >> I agree with this ^ but I don't think portage should rebuild for |
| 6 |
> >> DEPEND at all. It creates one more dangerous "it works in |
| 7 |
> >> portage!" situation that will plague users of other package |
| 8 |
> >> managers. |
| 9 |
> >> |
| 10 |
> >> (I'm not saying it couldn't be useful, but it should go in the |
| 11 |
> >> next EAPI if we're gonna do it.) |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > PMS doesn't specify when rebuilds are supposed to be triggered. You |
| 14 |
> > can consider the rebuilds as a means to satisfy the dependencies. |
| 15 |
> > Saying that the package manager should not make an effort to satisfy |
| 16 |
> > dependencies would be silly. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> It doesn't violate the PMS to do the extra rebuilds, but the PMS also |
| 19 |
> doesn't say that they should happen. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Hypothetical situation: a developer notices that Go packages need to |
| 22 |
> be rebuilt when the compiler changes, so he adds subslot operators to |
| 23 |
> DEPEND and everything looks fine. Until someone with a different |
| 24 |
> package manager tries to use it, that is; the rebuilds aren't |
| 25 |
> triggered unless you're using portage. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
The point is to specify dependencies declaratively. A dependency |
| 28 |
expresses a dependency, not an action. If you can't express the kind of |
| 29 |
dependency you need, then we need either labels or another *DEPEND |
| 30 |
variable to take care of it, not a bodge. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives