| 1 |
On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 00:06:45 +0000 |
| 2 |
"Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 5 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> On 31-08-2012 20:46, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> <snip> |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> > Also, we're getting rather a lot of *DEPEND variables here... If |
| 12 |
> > we're making people make major changes to their deps, which for |
| 13 |
> > HDEPEND we definitely would be, then the "it's expensive since |
| 14 |
> > people would have to redo their deps" argument against a combined |
| 15 |
> > DEPENDENCIES variable goes out of the window, so we should rethink |
| 16 |
> > that too. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> I have to agree with Ciaran, instead of multiplying DEPEND variables, |
| 19 |
> it's probably time we move to a single DEPENDENCIES variable. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Well, if you really insist that Gentoo is the right place to reinvent |
| 22 |
the wheel of bash variables... |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
If we really want to go this route, then please at least require |
| 25 |
explicit label at start of DEPENDENCIES. And the same when appending to |
| 26 |
DEPENDENCIES -- just so 'unlikely' mistakes will leave us with hours of |
| 27 |
debugging. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Furthermore, please think of eclasses. They *all* will have to append |
| 30 |
dependencies in two ways, in an EAPI-conditional way. Exherbo doesn't |
| 31 |
have that problem because they don't care about backwards |
| 32 |
compatibility. We will support old EAPIs for at least few years if not |
| 33 |
until the end of Gentoo. Not that appending dependencies in eclasses is |
| 34 |
really that good idea. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Remember that this requirement will actually cause migration to EAPI 5 |
| 37 |
to be even harder than to any previous EAPIs. Migrating a single ebuild |
| 38 |
will require rewriting the dependencies, and migrating an eclass will |
| 39 |
require adding a lot of dirty code. Especially if it is python.eclass. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
And we will have to convert them back to old-style dependencies anyway. |
| 42 |
For the sake of compatibility with external tools. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
And as a final note, on a request from ulm, I have created a wiki page |
| 45 |
where you could list all proposed new dependency types so we can have |
| 46 |
a broader look when deciding: |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Future_EAPI/New_dependency_types |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
-- |
| 51 |
Best regards, |
| 52 |
Michał Górny |
Archives