| 1 |
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 06:56:14PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> A := only makes sense for a dependency that is present both at build |
| 3 |
> time and at runtime. Currently, the only place you should be seeing |
| 4 |
> a := is on a spec that is listed in both DEPEND and RDEPEND. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Conceptually, the := applies to "the spec that is in both DEPEND and |
| 7 |
> RDEPEND". But with the current syntax, there's no such thing as "the |
| 8 |
> spec that is in both". There are two specs, which happen to be |
| 9 |
> identical as strings, one in DEPEND and one in RDEPEND, and there's no |
| 10 |
> way for the two to be associated. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
Now that *is* dishonestly ignorant: you know full well that LDEPEND [1] |
| 13 |
covers exactly that case. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
As well as obviating the need for := in the cases that break installs. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
And oh look, "required before build, but must be installed in ROOT, not |
| 18 |
on BUILD machine"; now where have I heard that requirement before? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
So there is a very easy way for the two to be associated, and to specify |
| 21 |
the most common (or any other, should it be justified) dependency that |
| 22 |
is in both, with the current syntax. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
But you knew that, right? You just chose to ignore it. Tsk: that's hardly |
| 25 |
academically rigorous. Bad form, old chap, simply bad form. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/80653 |
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-) |
Archives