Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Alec Warner <antarus@g.o>
To: Gentoo Dev <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH v2 3/3] gnuconfig.eclass: use BDEPEND, BROOT where available (drop support for EAPI <4)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2021 03:54:42
Message-Id: CAAr7Pr8zQxYEY01wXh04tz4THgSHHq6JNrVG3b1qrwpa4kQwOw@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH v2 3/3] gnuconfig.eclass: use BDEPEND, BROOT where available (drop support for EAPI <4) by Sam James
1 On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 5:19 PM Sam James <sam@g.o> wrote:
2 >
3 >
4 >
5 > > On 10 Apr 2021, at 01:13, Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote:
6 > >
7 > > On Sat, 2021-04-10 at 00:32 +0100, Sam James wrote:
8 > >>
9 > >>
10 > >> Yes, this is the part I find difficult too. The important
11 > >> distinction here was *bootstrapping* (which I missed)
12 > >> but I think at least we should make a list of packages generally considered
13 > >> critical for bootstrap.
14 > >>
15 > >
16 > > What is a bootstrap package?
17 > >
18 > > There is some chicken-and-egg problem to be solved, but I don't think
19 > > that we should be assuming that e.g. GNU grep is always present just
20 > > because, during the base case of some recursive process, POSIX grep
21 > > must be available temporarily.
22 > >
23 > > Anyway, https://bugs.gentoo.org/485356 awaits reopening if you make any
24 > > progress on this.
25 > >
26 >
27 > Oh, I agree completely. CCed myself on the bug and added to the list
28 > to think about/work on.
29 >
30 > I’m pleased a bug existed in the past! I don’t agree with it being closed though:
31 > documentation issues can exist without a patch existing to fix them yet, right?
32
33 I worry a lot about more complex dependencies trees (imagine all of
34 the exciting cycles in the currently excluded @system depgraph.)
35 Remember that while in theory it would be great if portage knew about
36 all of them; computing these nodes and edges isn't free. I question
37 what we are really buying with the extra complexity.
38
39 -A