| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 07/09/12 07:45 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> [ Snip! ] Note also how the foo-related things, the bar-related |
| 6 |
> things etc cannot be grouped together by their fooness or barness, |
| 7 |
> but are rather grouped by their DEPENDness and RDEPENDness. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> [ Snip! ] |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> So here's what DEPENDENCIES solves: |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Firstly, it allows developers to group together foo-related |
| 14 |
> dependencies and bar-related dependencies by their fooness and |
| 15 |
> barness, not by their role. [ Snip! ] *** It does it by replacing |
| 16 |
> the concept of "a package has build *** dependencies, run |
| 17 |
> dependencies, etc" with "a package has *** dependencies, and each |
| 18 |
> dependency is applicable at one or more of *** build time, run tme, |
| 19 |
> etc". |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
And this is the specific point that I don't like about DEPENDENCIES |
| 22 |
versus *DEPEND. As a developer, I personally find it much more |
| 23 |
straight-forward to fill in the deps needed for each role, rather than |
| 24 |
specifying the role(s) that each dep will play a part in. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Although I realize that technically I could still do that (have the |
| 27 |
dep list be role-centric rather than dep-centric), given that the |
| 28 |
point of this change is (as stated above) to organize deps the other |
| 29 |
way, I can't really get behind the idea. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 33 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlBKCcAACgkQ2ugaI38ACPDARgD+Inqa+/o1kTqlfuf7gC6wa3Da |
| 36 |
YAmj/F7Glno1QuzALboA/1l/XCbTr27XBGv7ULcvN0rdqqrBmarA8CgsySQiZRUB |
| 37 |
=Xwaz |
| 38 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives