| 1 |
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 09:08:36AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 09:54:47 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Micha?? G??rny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > This is a build-against dependency, and it's best expressed either |
| 5 |
> > > by its own BADEPEND, or (because it's apparently now possible, and |
| 6 |
> > > because otherwise we'd end up with six or seven *DEPEND variables) |
| 7 |
> > > by switching to something like DEPENDENCIES with a build-against |
| 8 |
> > > label. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Please do not wreak exheres into Gentoo. The current variable forms |
| 11 |
> > are complex enough; there is no reason to put even more logic into |
| 12 |
> > the parser. And yes, it's better to have 7 *DEPEND variables than one |
| 13 |
> > more magical, conditional thingie in the 'Dependencies' section. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> From feedback so far, I think you're in the minority on that (at least |
| 16 |
> from people who have expressed an opinion), and that more people have |
| 17 |
> come out in favour of a single unified variable (not necessarily with |
| 18 |
> exactly the same syntax as exheres-0). |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Personally... I think dependencies w/ labels is fricking ugly. That |
| 21 |
said I understand the intent- being able to layer in multiple forms of |
| 22 |
deps (specifically new forms beyond what EAPI currently provides) |
| 23 |
which is good. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Strikes me, this is glep territory; write it up w/ the specifics so |
| 26 |
everyone can look at it (including literal examples), and work from |
| 27 |
there. At the very least the facts would be on the table for people |
| 28 |
to read/vote on. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Same instant, the folks disagreeing can pick at the failings if any, |
| 31 |
and/or write up an alternative that uses seperated vars if they think |
| 32 |
it's friendlier. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Pretty much, I'd like to see this move into a realm of actual decision |
| 35 |
rather than just the current "use dependencies" "no they suck, and so |
| 36 |
do you". Alternative suggestions for moving it in that direction are |
| 37 |
welcome, but the current bickering isn't really going anywhere (this |
| 38 |
particular discussion has been appearing since eapi1 or so). |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Either way, we *do* need the new deps, so... getting something worked |
| 41 |
out would be preferable to having it keep dragging out. |
| 42 |
~brian |
Archives