Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Michael Mol <mikemol@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Unified DEPENDENCIES concept
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 16:32:14
Message-Id: CA+czFiD8M-u-ibHHCEYQRbVizzNFz3-bgwK_qmKWrPmTnqtnzw@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Unified DEPENDENCIES concept by Ian Stakenvicius
1 On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote:
2 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
3 > Hash: SHA256
4 >
5 > On 07/09/12 12:03 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
6 >> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 12:46:41 -0300 Alexis Ballier
7 >> <aballier@g.o> wrote:
8 >>
9 >>> I actually do like the concept but I'm not sure we can reach
10 >>> consensus about '*DEPEND vs DEPENDENCIES'; a possibility to get
11 >>> people used to it could be to have two parallel EAPIs, like 6 and
12 >>> 6-dependencies, where the former will keep the old style and the
13 >>> latter use DEPENDENCIES.
14 >>
15 >> With eclasses supporting both of them? That's more than crazy.
16 >>
17 >
18 > By the time EAPI=6* would happen we should have a git tree so we'd
19 > just fork the tree for EAPI=6-dependencies. :)
20 >
21 > A change like this would *NEED* a long-term test phase with a lot of
22 > developer participation, so if we were to consider it we'd need to
23 > fork the tree and implement/maintain it in parallel to main tree
24 > maintenance, imo. A translation script could probably also be used to
25 > convert *DEPEND into DEPENDENCIES automatically for any packages that
26 > dev's aren't manually managing...
27 >
28 > ...But I digress; we're nowhere near doing this yet.
29
30 An intermediate form of that might be useful for auditing the tree and
31 finding packages which aren't expressing, e.g. RDEPENDS, but probably
32 should.
33
34 --
35 :wq

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Unified DEPENDENCIES concept Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>