Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-pms@l.g.o
Cc: ulm@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] [PATCH] pkg_setup() can rely on packages common to DEPEND & RDEPEND.
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 08:45:06
Message-Id: 20110813094100.30a7c4d0@googlemail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-pms] [PATCH] pkg_setup() can rely on packages common to DEPEND & RDEPEND. by Ulrich Mueller
On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 10:38:28 +0200
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 13 Aug 2011, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > I think we're going about this in the wrong way. We should probably > > remove all mention of circular dependencies, and just state that > > there's nothing except system things guaranteed for pkg_*. > > Except that large parts of the tree rely on packages in RDEPEND being > available in pkg_*.
Then those packages are broken. (And we can't ban RDEPEND cycle breaking, since large parts of the tree rely upon that too.)
> > If there's a need for dependencies that will definitely be installed > > for pkg_setup, we should introduce an IDEPEND (for 'install'). > > And then at some point we will have circular IDEPEND dependencies and > the package manager will have to break such cycles, as it does for > RDEPEND now.
No, IDEPEND will simply not allow cycle breaking, in the same way as DEPEND. IDEPEND would be, in effect, DEPEND that is also honoured for binary packages. -- Ciaran McCreesh

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies