On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 22:36:04 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@...> wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 23:21:02 +0200
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
> > And the third version.
> > 
> > I added a note about the possible circular RDEPEND issue. I wanted
> > to do that through a footnote but wasn't able to get it working so
> > it's a standard bracket now).
> 
> 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.

We either have to mention that or assume the long-outstanding portage
behavior is not PMS compliant. And even if we choose the latter option,
I think we should have a footnote warning about that there.

> Also, isn't pkg_setup the same as pkg_preinst, availability-wise?

IMO not necessarily. During later pkg_* phases, RDEPEND needs to be
satisfied in order to make it possible to call the installed program. I
don't really see a reason to make similar assumptions in pkg_setup, and
I'd really like to avoid saying 'RDEPEND is for program's runtime
dependencies and pkg_setup dependencies'.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny