| 1 |
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 06:58:51 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 18:15:43 +0200 |
| 5 |
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > If we really want to go this route, then please at least require |
| 7 |
> > explicit label at start of DEPENDENCIES. And the same when appending |
| 8 |
> > to DEPENDENCIES -- just so 'unlikely' mistakes will leave us with |
| 9 |
> > hours of debugging. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> We should take the exheres-0 rules for labels and eclasses, which |
| 12 |
> limit labels' scopes to blocks, and which introduce an extra ( ) |
| 13 |
> block around the outside when doing eclass variable merging. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Because? I believe we should take 'Gentoo rules', including required |
| 16 |
explicit build+run at the start. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> > Not that appending dependencies in eclasses is really that good |
| 19 |
> > idea. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Dependencies aren't appended over eclasses, they're merged. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Thanks for correcting my wording, like the naming was really relevant |
| 24 |
to the topic. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> (And I have a sneaking recollection of PMS not documenting this |
| 27 |
> properly...) |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Yes, I think PMS is pretty silent about this. I think it doesn't even |
| 30 |
say that in phase functions the contents are implementation-defined. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> > Remember that this requirement will actually cause migration to |
| 33 |
> > EAPI 5 to be even harder than to any previous EAPIs. Migrating a |
| 34 |
> > single ebuild will require rewriting the dependencies, and |
| 35 |
> > migrating an eclass will require adding a lot of dirty code. |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> Migrating to EAPI 5 requires rewriting dependencies anyway if we're |
| 38 |
> adding in HDEPEND. Also, earlier EAPIs have introduced new phase |
| 39 |
> functions, which is a far ickier change for ebuilds than this. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Do you really believe in HDEPEND in EAPI 5? I've already postponed this |
| 42 |
in my mind. Also, not every single ebuild will actually need it. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
> > And we will have to convert them back to old-style dependencies |
| 45 |
> > anyway. For the sake of compatibility with external tools. |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> No, external tools are required to be EAPI aware. If they're not, then |
| 48 |
> the external tools need fixing. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
Changing package manager API like that between EAPI is just bad. You |
| 51 |
know that, don't you? |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
-- |
| 54 |
Best regards, |
| 55 |
Michał Górny |
Archives