1 |
Clarification, mixture of the emails I haven't responded to addressed |
2 |
here (further, sorry for the delay, didn't think the thread would go |
3 |
any further while I was offline for birthdays/4th of july stuff)... |
4 |
|
5 |
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 04:39:14AM +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote: |
6 |
> On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 20:59 -0500, Brian Jackson wrote: |
7 |
> > Martin Schlemmer wrote: |
8 |
> > <snip> |
9 |
> > >> |
10 |
> > >>Big picture here: |
11 |
> > >>* BDEPEND does nothing now, so don't worry about it if you don't want to |
12 |
> > >>* in the future it will make other things possible |
13 |
> > >>* give the man problems you see with the proposal, not just tell him that |
14 |
> > >>portage doesn't handle it right now... I think out of anyone, he knows what |
15 |
> > >>portage does and doesn't handle |
16 |
> > >> |
17 |
> > > |
18 |
> > > |
19 |
> > > I did ask Brian in another reply how he thought to implement it. |
20 |
> > > |
21 |
> > > This one however I read as Drake saying/asking that we should start |
22 |
> > > doing it now, and I tried to explain why we could not up until now, and |
23 |
> > > still cannot. Correct me if I interpreted it wrongly. |
24 |
> > > |
25 |
> > > |
26 |
> > |
27 |
> > I don't know why we can't start now if we want. BDEPEND will be silently |
28 |
> > ignored, so current versions of portage will just be blissfully ignorant. |
29 |
> > |
30 |
> > Am I missing something? |
31 |
> > |
32 |
> |
33 |
> Yeah, I thought Drake was talking about DEPEND (that was at least what |
34 |
> he said), not BDEPEND. |
35 |
Adding it into DEPEND now would cause holy hell, definitely not |
36 |
advocating that approach, it's not backwards compatible and it's |
37 |
jumping the gun with no gain aside from breaking the tree since the |
38 |
current resolver likes to go loco. |
39 |
|
40 |
Restating, the actual chost atoms *must* be seperated from ctarget |
41 |
deps. It allows current portage to pretty much ignore them (thus not |
42 |
taxing the current resolver), and it provides portage with |
43 |
classification of those deps. |
44 |
|
45 |
> |
46 |
> > Some of us think we can't start now, others think we can. I was under the |
47 |
> > impression from ferringb that we could. |
48 |
> > |
49 |
> |
50 |
> BDEPEND should be fine to start now depending on faith. |
51 |
Not after having it rolled into the tree, _yet_. First email pretty |
52 |
much stated I was just after seeing if it was tenuable beyond just the |
53 |
portage crews views on it :) |
54 |
|
55 |
Basically, I was attempting to get feedback on issues where this |
56 |
wouldn't be quiet enough, an example of which is ncurses. |
57 |
(my understanding of this, thanks to flameeyes for clueing me in) |
58 |
ncurses built/installed in chost==ctarget, BDEPEND= |
59 |
ncurses built/installed in chost!=ctarget, BDEPEND=ncurses |
60 |
|
61 |
So... need to expose either ctarget as some type of flag for bdepend, |
62 |
or use flag type hack (native when chost=ctarget, -native when |
63 |
evaluating a use conditional in a domain where chost!=ctarget). |
64 |
|
65 |
Thoughts regarding it? I'd expect we'll have to expose ctarget info |
66 |
in some way for use conditionals, but would like some feedback on what |
67 |
else may be required. |
68 |
~harring |