Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 19:47:57
Message-Id: 20120918204433.52af8bcd@googlemail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal by Zac Medico
1 On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:40:51 -0700
2 Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote:
3 > On 09/18/2012 12:29 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
4 > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:25:57 -0700
5 > > Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote:
6 > >> Also, if we change the meaning of RDEPEND in the next EAPI, so that
7 > >> it's a hard build-time dep like DEPEND, then DEPEND="${RDEPEND}
8 > >> virtual/pkgconfig" can be reduced to DEPEND="virtual/pkgconfig".
9 > >> This is what I would like to do for the experimental EAPI
10 > >> 5-hdepend which is planned [1].
11 > >
12 > > What're we going to do about the zillions of unsolvable cycles that
13 > > that would create? (Does Portage detect those and error out yet?)
14 >
15 > Yeah, it would be treated just like a DEPEND cycle, which is already
16 > detected and treated as a fatal error. As a result, when bumping the
17 > EAPI of an ebuild, you may have to migrate some deps from RDEPEND to
18 > PDEPEND in order to solve the cycles.
19
20 What about the large number of RDEPENDs that are required for a package
21 to be usable, but not for it to be installed?
22
23 --
24 Ciaran McCreesh

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies