[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: [gentoo-pms] GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal

[Steven J. Long]

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 05:38:06PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> "Steven J. Long" <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 06:56:14PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > But with the current syntax, there's no such thing as "the
> > > spec that is in both". There are two specs, which happen to be
> > > identical as strings, one in DEPEND and one in RDEPEND, and there's
> > > no way for the two to be associated.
> > >
> > Now that *is* dishonestly ignorant: you know full well that LDEPEND
> > [1] covers exactly that case.
>
> Everyone else knows full well that LDEPEND is such a badly broken idea
> that it's not worth discussing...

*sigh* and as usual you ignore the actual point:

> So there is a very easy way for the two to be associated, and to specify
> the most common (or any other, should it be justified) dependency that
> is in both, with the current syntax.

Irrespective of which variable we discuss, the fact remains that it is
perfectly possible to specify a dependency that is in both, addressing
the points raised by Harring, which are actually your concerns.

Except you couldn't be bothered to outline those, just like you are hand-
waving now.

Again, I am left wondering just what kind of academics Cambridge is
producing nowadays.

-- 
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)