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 |