| 1 |
On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 04:49:21 -0700 |
| 2 |
Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 01:21:26PM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 04:10:01 -0700 |
| 6 |
> > Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > > On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 09:56:27AM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote: |
| 9 |
> > > > But consider that for example Zac & AxS (correct me if I recall |
| 10 |
> > > > it correctly) considered making changing the meaning of RDEPEND |
| 11 |
> > > > to install them before the build, thus effectively making |
| 12 |
> > > > 'build,run' useless. |
| 13 |
> > > |
| 14 |
> > > I really am not trying to be a blatant dick to you, but this has |
| 15 |
> > > /zero/ relevance. RDEPEND means "required for runtime". That |
| 16 |
> > > ain't changing. If they were discussing changing what RDEPEND |
| 17 |
> > > meant, then they were high, period. |
| 18 |
> > > |
| 19 |
> > > If zac/axs want to try and make the resolver install RDEPEND |
| 20 |
> > > before DEPEND... well, they're free to. That doesn't change the |
| 21 |
> > > fact that the deps still must be specified correctly; in short, |
| 22 |
> > > build,run is very much relevant. |
| 23 |
> > |
| 24 |
> > I don't think we have made up our mind what *exactly* we want from |
| 25 |
> > deps. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Are we now expecting deps to give us ponies or something? We know |
| 28 |
> *exactly* what we want from deps, and their current definition- the |
| 29 |
> problem isn't the definition, it's that we don't have the forms we |
| 30 |
> need. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
No, the problem is that we think we need more than we have now. Unless |
| 33 |
you're considering the whole point of this thread is cosmetics... then |
| 34 |
please leave that to Fedora or other people who are paid to change |
| 35 |
stuff just because they can. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
> > Just because we have something semi-correct right now, doesn't |
| 38 |
> > mean that we don't want to change that. |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> This is a no-op argument against the proposal: "we can't |
| 41 |
> change the deps because we might want to change the deps". It's also |
| 42 |
> irrelevant due to the core basis of it being broken as fuck |
| 43 |
> (described above). |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
What I'm trying to say is that you're making a lot of noise about |
| 46 |
cosmetics while we haven't even agreed on what's supposed to be inside. |
| 47 |
So, are we introducing this obtuse syntax for three DEPEND variables, |
| 48 |
of which the third is almost never used? |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
-- |
| 51 |
Best regards, |
| 52 |
Michał Górny |
Archives