| 1 |
On 09/18/2012 12:44 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:40:51 -0700 |
| 3 |
> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> On 09/18/2012 12:29 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:25:57 -0700 |
| 6 |
>>> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
>>>> Also, if we change the meaning of RDEPEND in the next EAPI, so that |
| 8 |
>>>> it's a hard build-time dep like DEPEND, then DEPEND="${RDEPEND} |
| 9 |
>>>> virtual/pkgconfig" can be reduced to DEPEND="virtual/pkgconfig". |
| 10 |
>>>> This is what I would like to do for the experimental EAPI |
| 11 |
>>>> 5-hdepend which is planned [1]. |
| 12 |
>>> |
| 13 |
>>> What're we going to do about the zillions of unsolvable cycles that |
| 14 |
>>> that would create? (Does Portage detect those and error out yet?) |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> Yeah, it would be treated just like a DEPEND cycle, which is already |
| 17 |
>> detected and treated as a fatal error. As a result, when bumping the |
| 18 |
>> EAPI of an ebuild, you may have to migrate some deps from RDEPEND to |
| 19 |
>> PDEPEND in order to solve the cycles. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> What about the large number of RDEPENDs that are required for a package |
| 22 |
> to be usable, but not for it to be installed? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
You will have to migrate those deps from RDEPEND to PDEPEND. |
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Thanks, |
| 27 |
Zac |
Archives