| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 30/09/12 05:53 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 14:42:14 -0700 Brian Harring |
| 6 |
> <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 7 |
>>> The second is that it starts the conceptual shift from "cat/pkg |
| 8 |
>>> is a build dep, and cat/pkg is a run dep" to "cat/pkg is a dep |
| 9 |
>>> that is required for build and run". |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> Fairly weak argument at best; you're claiming that via labels, |
| 12 |
>> "contextually they know it's these deps" in comparison to via |
| 13 |
>> dep:build "contextually they know it's exposed only in build". |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> Same difference. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> It's rather a big deal now that we have := dependencies. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
So you would using your labels syntax, specify an atom with a := dep |
| 21 |
using certain labels and the same atom without ':=' on other labels? |
| 22 |
I don't quite follow what you're getting at here as to how this is a |
| 23 |
big deal.. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 26 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlBrKYUACgkQ2ugaI38ACPAMJAD9FzCH4ifbkanbC17w2KGjMHP7 |
| 29 |
G4qBrJ9v2dd7sHV338EA/iK/J+NZosc+M7wefJ8J6fU4mVczlM4WiOkCNVsTSO6w |
| 30 |
=Io2B |
| 31 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives