>>>>> On Sat, 13 Aug 2011, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 12:10:45 +0200
> Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:
>> >> Except that large parts of the tree rely on packages in RDEPEND
>> >> being available in pkg_*.
>> 
>> > Then those packages are broken.
>> 
>> Welcome to reality. ;-)

> Reality is that RDEPEND cycle breaking happens, so those packages
> only work if by fluke they're not in an RDEPEND cycle.

> Now, we *could* weasel our way out of it by saying that it's illegal
> for any repository to include a package that would induce such a
> cycle between packages that rely upon the intersection of DEPEND and
> RDEPEND being available in pkg_*. But that's pretty horrible, so if
> we do that then we really need to fix things in future EAPIs.

I'd still suggest that for existing EAPIs we should go with mgorny's
latest patch, simply because "packages common to DEPEND and RDEPEND
(but see below)" is a more accurate description than "none".

However, we should keep in mind that the situation with respect to
pkg_* is not well defined. Therefore a new dependency type could be
beneficial for future EAPIs.

Ulrich