1 |
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:25:51AM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote: |
2 |
> > test depends: to specifically mark those dependencies that are only |
3 |
> > needed for when the pkg is being tested; effectively ephemeral |
4 |
> > build/run time depends that go away once testing is completed. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> Does that mean that USE=test is going away somehow? |
7 |
|
8 |
If you think it through, a test use flag still is needed in the cases |
9 |
where the rdep itself would change if test was enabled; such a source |
10 |
is fairy rare, but not always just someone being moronic- certain |
11 |
cases to do testing, the tests need to reach in fairly deeply and |
12 |
recompilation for compile vs test isn't exposed. |
13 |
|
14 |
|
15 |
> Also, could you please stop spreading FUD with your examples? |
16 |
|
17 |
It's not FUD; it's rendered deps, and a demonstration of how they |
18 |
collapse down naturally on their own regardless of how you generate |
19 |
them. |
20 |
|
21 |
Quite frankly, it's a fairly effective demonstration in my views, but |
22 |
so it goes. |
23 |
|
24 |
> A quick |
25 |
> glance shows that what you have expanded there, a fairly reasonable |
26 |
> Gentoo dev will solve using: |
27 |
> |
28 |
> RDEPEND="[common depends]" |
29 |
> DEPEND="${RDEPEND} |
30 |
> [build only depends]" |
31 |
|
32 |
from diffball (under current EAPIs) |
33 |
|
34 |
""" |
35 |
RDEPEND=">=sys-libs/zlib-1.1.4 |
36 |
>=app-arch/bzip2-1.0.2 |
37 |
app-arch/xz-utils" |
38 |
DEPEND="${RDEPEND} |
39 |
virtual/pkgconfig" |
40 |
""" |
41 |
|
42 |
becomes the following under the proposal: |
43 |
|
44 |
""" |
45 |
DEPENDENCIES=">=sys-libs/zlib-1.1.4 |
46 |
>=app-arch/bzip2-1.0.2 |
47 |
app-arch/xz-utils" |
48 |
dep:build? ( virtual/pkgconfig )" |
49 |
""" |
50 |
|
51 |
Suspect I may add that to the doc; it's a good example of the ground |
52 |
level simple gains for devs inherent in the proposal- thanks for |
53 |
helping improve it. |
54 |
|
55 |
|
56 |
> So if you really want to show some advantages, please compare it with |
57 |
> *real* code. |
58 |
|
59 |
I think I'll take the risk, and assume people capable of discussing |
60 |
DEPENDENCIES and vaguely knowledgable in the ebuild format will be |
61 |
able to understand how their ebuilds will change; thus I'll skip that |
62 |
request of yours. |
63 |
|
64 |
|
65 |
A productive suggestion for you; you should go looking through the |
66 |
tree finding cases where DEPENENCIES is a regression in form at the |
67 |
shell level, or rendered deps level. |
68 |
|
69 |
Should you manage to find something that's not contrived or |
70 |
intentionally cracktastic, I expect people would be interested. |
71 |
|
72 |
~harring |