| 1 |
On 08/02/2011 11:29 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2011 20:18:17 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> I think I prefer the second option (copying from Exherbo). A better |
| 5 |
>>> integration with the package manager than USE flags should result |
| 6 |
>>> in a better user experience. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> Are you willing to update and EAPI-bump all the eclasses? May I remind |
| 9 |
>> you that most of them don't even go beyond EAPI 0? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Most of them shouldn't need to care about EAPI at all. For those that |
| 12 |
> do, the only changes that should be necessary for an Exherbo-like |
| 13 |
> SDEPEND solution are for packages that actually want to use it... |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> If you also want to switch from *DEPEND to DEPENDENCIES (which would |
| 16 |
> also allow a whole bunch of other long standing feature requests to be |
| 17 |
> fulfilled) then it's still only slightly more work -- but last time I |
| 18 |
> asked, adding new dependency classes or switching dependency syntax was |
| 19 |
> in the "too tricky to do in Portage" boat. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Nowadays, it's not too tricky to do in Portage. The code that translates |
| 22 |
*DEPEND into objects can easily be extended to translate something like |
| 23 |
DEPENDENCIES into similar objects. |
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Thanks, |
| 26 |
Zac |
Archives