Re: [gentoo-dev] The fun of being a PDEPEND

[Fabio Erculiani]

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote:
>
> The ASAP behavior seems relatively optimal, which makes it difficult to
> argue that ebuild maintainers should have to go to the trouble of
> creating virtuals and updating reverse dependencies.

Yes it is and I agree, but the point here is that PMS doesn't say
anything about it.

>
> It seems like your setting up an ongoing conflict with ebuild
> maintainers if you don't implement the ASAP behavior. Isn't it worth
> your trouble to implement the ASAP behavior, just to get them out of
> your hair?

No it's not, but I would have the matter clarified first, and perhaps
eventually fixed by updating PMS documentation.

>
>> OTOH, I think that the gray area should be cleared out by clearly
>> stating what is legal or not in an updated EAPI. Isn't that
>> reasonable?
>
> It's already been allowed for years, so a new EAPI would only make sense
> if your taking away the ASAP behavior, which seems like a step
> backwards. Given the push-back that you're likely to get from ebuild
> developers over time, I think you're much better off if you just
> implement the ASAP behavior.

I would rather want to see it becoming mandatory by PMS, also.
But beside the ASAP, do you agree that there is still a dependency issue?

> --
> Thanks,
> Zac
>
>



-- 
Fabio Erculiani