Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 20:53:10
Message-Id: 20120918225104.567ca679@pomiocik.lan
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal by Ciaran McCreesh
1 On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 20:44:33 +0100
2 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote:
3
4 > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:40:51 -0700
5 > Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote:
6 > > On 09/18/2012 12:29 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
7 > > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:25:57 -0700
8 > > > Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote:
9 > > >> Also, if we change the meaning of RDEPEND in the next EAPI, so
10 > > >> that it's a hard build-time dep like DEPEND, then
11 > > >> DEPEND="${RDEPEND} virtual/pkgconfig" can be reduced to
12 > > >> DEPEND="virtual/pkgconfig". This is what I would like to do for
13 > > >> the experimental EAPI 5-hdepend which is planned [1].
14 > > >
15 > > > What're we going to do about the zillions of unsolvable cycles
16 > > > that that would create? (Does Portage detect those and error out
17 > > > yet?)
18 > >
19 > > Yeah, it would be treated just like a DEPEND cycle, which is already
20 > > detected and treated as a fatal error. As a result, when bumping the
21 > > EAPI of an ebuild, you may have to migrate some deps from RDEPEND to
22 > > PDEPEND in order to solve the cycles.
23 >
24 > What about the large number of RDEPENDs that are required for a
25 > package to be usable, but not for it to be installed?
26
27 They will still be RDEPEND, just installed earlier I believe. Except
28 for those arising conflicts which will have to be moved to PDEP. But
29 I think Zac said that already.
30
31 --
32 Best regards,
33 Michał Górny

Attachments

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

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>