Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: ciaran.mccreesh@..., mgorny@g.o
From: Brian Harring <ferringb@...>
Subject: Re: How to handle dependencies on protocol headers?
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 02:15:17 -0700
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 09:08:36AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 09:54:47 +0200
> Micha?? G??rny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
> > > This is a build-against dependency, and it's best expressed either
> > > by its own BADEPEND, or (because it's apparently now possible, and
> > > because otherwise we'd end up with six or seven *DEPEND variables)
> > > by switching to something like DEPENDENCIES with a build-against
> > > label.
> > 
> > Please do not wreak exheres into Gentoo. The current variable forms
> > are complex enough; there is no reason to put even more logic into
> > the parser. And yes, it's better to have 7 *DEPEND variables than one
> > more magical, conditional thingie in the 'Dependencies' section.
> 
> From feedback so far, I think you're in the minority on that (at least
> from people who have expressed an opinion), and that more people have
> come out in favour of a single unified variable (not necessarily with
> exactly the same syntax as exheres-0).

Personally... I think dependencies w/ labels is fricking ugly.  That 
said I understand the intent- being able to layer in multiple forms of 
deps (specifically new forms beyond what EAPI currently provides) 
which is good.

Strikes me, this is glep territory; write it up w/ the specifics so 
everyone can look at it (including literal examples), and work from 
there.  At the very least the facts would be on the table for people 
to read/vote on.

Same instant, the folks disagreeing can pick at the failings if any, 
and/or write up an alternative that uses seperated vars if they think 
it's friendlier.

Pretty much, I'd like to see this move into a realm of actual decision 
rather than just the current "use dependencies" "no they suck, and so 
do you".  Alternative suggestions for moving it in that direction are 
welcome, but the current bickering isn't really going anywhere (this 
particular discussion has been appearing since eapi1 or so).

Either way, we *do* need the new deps, so... getting something worked 
out would be preferable to having it keep dragging out.
~brian


References:
Re: How to handle dependencies on protocol headers?
-- Ciaran McCreesh
Re: How to handle dependencies on protocol headers?
-- Michał Górny
Re: How to handle dependencies on protocol headers?
-- Ciaran McCreesh
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: How to handle dependencies on protocol headers?
Next by thread:
[RFC] Adding a tiny install-mask directory list to gx86
Previous by date:
Re: new `usex` helper
Next by date:
[RFC] Adding a tiny install-mask directory list to gx86


Updated Jun 29, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.