| 1 |
On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 18:15:43 +0200 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> If we really want to go this route, then please at least require |
| 4 |
> explicit label at start of DEPENDENCIES. And the same when appending |
| 5 |
> to DEPENDENCIES -- just so 'unlikely' mistakes will leave us with |
| 6 |
> hours of debugging. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
We should take the exheres-0 rules for labels and eclasses, which limit |
| 9 |
labels' scopes to blocks, and which introduce an extra ( ) block around |
| 10 |
the outside when doing eclass variable merging. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> Not that appending dependencies in eclasses is really that good idea. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Dependencies aren't appended over eclasses, they're merged. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
(And I have a sneaking recollection of PMS not documenting this |
| 17 |
properly...) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> Remember that this requirement will actually cause migration to EAPI 5 |
| 20 |
> to be even harder than to any previous EAPIs. Migrating a single |
| 21 |
> ebuild will require rewriting the dependencies, and migrating an |
| 22 |
> eclass will require adding a lot of dirty code. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Migrating to EAPI 5 requires rewriting dependencies anyway if we're |
| 25 |
adding in HDEPEND. Also, earlier EAPIs have introduced new phase |
| 26 |
functions, which is a far ickier change for ebuilds than this. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> Especially if it is python.eclass. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
You know what the solution there is... |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> And we will have to convert them back to old-style dependencies |
| 33 |
> anyway. For the sake of compatibility with external tools. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
No, external tools are required to be EAPI aware. If they're not, then |
| 36 |
the external tools need fixing. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives