Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o>
To: Gentoo Dev <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH 3/5] xdg.eclass: move deps to RDEPEND
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 02:22:34
Message-Id: CAJ0EP419g5zBkUkk6fzUWsbdd4PRZRoP70b=iB3xFVBFtDq9tw@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH 3/5] xdg.eclass: move deps to RDEPEND by "Marty E. Plummer"
1 On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 10:14 PM Marty E. Plummer <hanetzer@×××××××××.com> wrote:
2 >
3 > On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 10:08:03AM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
4 > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 9:17 AM James Le Cuirot <chewi@g.o> wrote:
5 > > >
6 > > > On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 09:00:38 -0400
7 > > > Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote:
8 > > >
9 > > > > > The reason why it is in DEPEND though is that none of these tools
10 > > > > > are required at runtime. They are needed at postinst and postrm
11 > > > > > stages which afaik makes them DEPEND on EAPI previous to EAPI 7 and
12 > > > > > BDEPEND in EAPI 7 if I'm not mistaken.
13 > > > >
14 > > > > This is incorrect; programs executed in pkg_postinst/pkg_postrm should
15 > > > > be present in RDEPEND. Consider a binpkg installation, which would
16 > > > > ignore DEPEND, but would still execute pkg_postinst.
17 > > > >
18 > > > > Another option: since xdg-utils.eclass functions will politely skip
19 > > > > the updates if the tools are missing, we could just drop the
20 > > > > dependency from xdg.eclass entirely and wait for the tools to get
21 > > > > installed through some indirect means.
22 > > >
23 > > > Unfortunately there is no correct answer here as we didn't consider
24 > > > this scenario when planning EAPI 7. We should have looked at Exherbo,
25 > > > which does make this important distinction. There is a bug report open.
26 > > >
27 > > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/660306
28 > > >
29 > > > What I will say is that we should not attempt to executing anything
30 > > > from within ROOT or SYSROOT unless it known to be interpreted
31 > > > (e.g. a shell script) and there is no feasible alternative. I add that
32 > > > exclusion clause because I have been forced to do this with
33 > > > python-config.
34 > >
35 > > That's a good point; both update-desktop-database and
36 > > update-mime-database are compiled binaries, and should probably be
37 > > executed from BROOT (/) instead. I'll revise my patchset.
38 > >
39 > Not to steal the show/etc, but I do have a patchset which does most of
40 > this already across {gnome2,xdg}{,-utils}.eclass, though I'm as
41 > conflicted as you guys are with regards to the DEPEND/PDEPEND/BDEPEND/RDPEND
42 > for it as well.
43 > https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/e0167edbb7b48b03dc90bfbb250ae16d
44
45 Thanks for pointing this out, I missed this patchset. Can you rebase
46 on current master and add Signed-off-by?
47
48 Or maybe start with a github pull request and we can work out the
49 kinks there. Whichever you prefer.
50
51 Note that I pushed my patches for xdg-utils.eclass already, and just
52 sent another patch to drop EROOT from the binary paths. It would
53 probably be best to drop EROOT from the gtk-update-icon-cache path as
54 well.

Replies

Subject Author
[gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH 3/5] xdg.eclass: move deps to RDEPEND Andreas Sturmlechner <asturm@g.o>