Re: [gentoo-dev] Unified DEPENDENCIES concept

[Michał Górny]

On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 16:59:48 -0300
Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote:

> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 20:21:03 +0200
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 14:40:25 -0300
> > Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 18:03:51 +0200
> > > Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 12:46:41 -0300
> > > > Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I actually do like the concept but I'm not sure we can reach
> > > > > consensus about '*DEPEND vs DEPENDENCIES'; a possibility to
> > > > > get people used to it could be to have two parallel EAPIs,
> > > > > like 6 and 6-dependencies, where the former will keep the old
> > > > > style and the latter use DEPENDENCIES.
> > > >
> > > > With eclasses supporting both of them? That's more than crazy.
> > >
> > > depstr=cat/foo
> > >
> > > case $EAPI in
> > >  *-dependencies) DEPENDENCIES="build+run: $depstr";;
> > >  *) DEPEND="$depstr"
> > >     RDEPEND="$depstr";;
> > > esac
> >
> > Yes, we have many eclasses where this is actually the only expected
> > result. Maybe start with python.eclass, that should be quite an
> > extreme example.
> >
>
> Reference needed. You probably didn't even think more than 2 seconds
> before making this claim about python.eclass, because it is not
> particularly hard.

Hmm, didn't it used to support having python as DEPEND only?

In any case, I'm thinking more of that line. Eclasses which sometimes
add RDEP+DEP, sometimes DEP only, and sometimes do even crazier things.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny