Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC about another *DEPEND variable
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 15:10:58
Message-Id: 20060921145155.GE30105@seldon
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC about another *DEPEND variable by Alin Nastac
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 05:38:08PM +0300, Alin Nastac wrote:
> Brian Harring wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 01:38:59PM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote: > > > > There is one flaw with this though; packages can provide both > > libraries _and_ binaries. Our dependencies don't represent whether > > the dep is actual linkage, or just commandline consuming, so (using > > the openssl example) any package that invokes openssl via the > > commandline to do a few simple chksum ops gets rebuilt, despite the > > fact it wasn't affected by linkage change ups. > > > I like BINCOMPAT proposal but it solves only half of the problem. You > assume that all dependent packages cares about binary compatibility. > Why not using a BDEPEND var in those dependent packages affected by the > BINCOMPAT values of their dependencies? > > For instance, I would set the following: > - in net-dialup/ppp ebuild: BINCOMPAT=${PV} > - in net-dialup/pptpd ebuild: BDEPEND="net-dialup/ppp"
BDEPEND was actually a seperate proposal/idea, intention there was to have that be the deps that *must* be CHOST (gcc would be an example); bits that are used to actually build the pkg, not data it consumes in building (headers would be data). Meanwhile, for this I don't see the point in using a seperate metadata key. Overload DEPEND and add a marker char that is used to indicate that a particular dependency is 'binding', ie, it is linkage. ~harring


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC about another *DEPEND variable Alin Nastac <mrness@g.o>