1 |
On 09/07/2012 07:45 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
> Since DEPENDENCIES hasn't been written up in a Gentoo-friendly |
3 |
> manner, and since the Exherbo documentation doesn't seem to suffice |
4 |
> to explain the idea here, here's some more details on the |
5 |
> DEPENDENCIES proposal. |
6 |
> |
7 |
|
8 |
It seems to me that the problem this solves is just one of ontology. |
9 |
It's analogous to trying to stick files named "foo", "bar", "baz", |
10 |
etc. into directories named "depend", "rdepend", "hdepend", and so on. |
11 |
|
12 |
There are a few well-known ways to organize things in a hierarchy, and |
13 |
which one is most efficient depends on the categories and objects that |
14 |
you have. Given the way that most software is built (see: |
15 |
COMMON_DEPEND), I think DEPENDENCIES would work better than what we're |
16 |
doing now, but it also seems more complex. |
17 |
|
18 |
I think that dependencies are ultimately not hierarchical, and this |
19 |
can force duplication in DEPENDENCIES as well. Has anyone considered |
20 |
tagging the package atoms with a list of dependency types? For example, |
21 |
|
22 |
* foo/bar: ( build run host ) |
23 |
* baz/one: baz? ( build ) |
24 |
* baz/two, baz/three: baz? ( build run ) |
25 |
... |
26 |
|
27 |
This would eliminate duplication of the objects (package atoms) in |
28 |
favor of duplication of the categories (dependency types). Since the |
29 |
package atoms are what we really care about, I think the tradeoff is |
30 |
beneficial. Maintainers get to express each dependency exactly once. |