Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>
To: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
Cc: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>, gentoo-pms@l.g.o, Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] Rephrasing *DEPEND
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 11:27:12
Message-Id: 19967.11904.13769.805714@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-pms] Rephrasing *DEPEND by Ciaran McCreesh
>>>>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2011, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 23:21:02 +0200 Micha³ Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: >> I added a note about the possible circular RDEPEND issue.
> I still don't think we should be specifying "RDEPEND is PDEPEND if > the package manager feels like it". That's something for the package > mangler to provide as a horrible --ignore-dependencies-to-break-cycles > option.
It's _not_ saying that RDEPEND is like PDEPEND in some cases. The assertion from your previous message in this thread will always hold: | The intention with the "usable" stuff is this that purely RDEPEND | cycles are resolvable, but any such cycles must be resolved before | any package which has a DEPEND upon anything in the cycle is | resolved. So if you've got this: | | first <-- rdepend --- second <-- depend --- third | --- rdepend --> | | Then (first, second, third) and (second, first, third) are the only | legal orderings. But if either RDEPEND became a DEPEND (and if we're | not dealing with binary packages) then there would be no legal | ordering. This is long-standing Portage behaviour (introduced in 2006 with the patches attached to bug 147766, I believe). The footnote would only clarify that in your example neither "first" nor "second" can rely on their rdepend being available in pkg_*inst. Ulrich