1 |
On 05/30/2018 04:49 AM, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: |
2 |
> Hi, |
3 |
> |
4 |
> HOORAY, seems like EAPI 7 might be able to obsolete the "prefix-chaining" |
5 |
> portage patch I've carried in prefix-overlay all the time, thank you for that! |
6 |
> |
7 |
> However, a first thing being unclear already came up when bumping EAPI 6 to 7: |
8 |
> |
9 |
> For example, the current app-misc/ca-certificates ebuild (EAPI 6) contains: |
10 |
> |
11 |
> # c_rehash: we run `c_rehash` |
12 |
> # debianutils: we run `run-parts` |
13 |
> RDEPEND="${DEPEND} |
14 |
> app-misc/c_rehash |
15 |
> sys-apps/debianutils" |
16 |
> |
17 |
> pkg_postinst() { |
18 |
> if [ -d "${EROOT}/usr/local/share/ca-certificates" ] ; then |
19 |
> # if the user has local certs, we need to rebuild again |
20 |
> # to include their stuff in the db. |
21 |
> # However it's too overzealous when the user has custom certs in place. |
22 |
> # --fresh is to clean up dangling symlinks |
23 |
> "${EROOT}"/usr/sbin/update-ca-certificates --root "${ROOT}" |
24 |
> fi |
25 |
> } |
26 |
> |
27 |
> Thing is, these RDEPENDs are not really required to "run" ca-certificates, but to |
28 |
> administrate it - which eventually is done on the CBUILD machine (from within the |
29 |
> ebuild, like in pkg_postinst currently), not necessarily on the CHOST machine. |
30 |
> |
31 |
> So I do not necessarily want these RDEPENDs to be installed on the CHOST machine, |
32 |
> given that they may not be executed from within the CBUILD machine at all. |
33 |
> |
34 |
> So the first idea is to move both RDEPENDs into BDEPEND. But then, they are |
35 |
> not guaranteed to be available during pkg_postinst - like for a binary package. |
36 |
|
37 |
Right, so it really belongs in RDEPEND *and* BDEPEND. |
38 |
|
39 |
> Question now is: Is this wrong behaviour in the ebuild, |
40 |
> or is this something where EAPI 7 is still insufficient for? |
41 |
|
42 |
If we want to tune the dependencies more finely, we'll need new EAPI. |
43 |
|
44 |
> When this is wrong (probably independent of EAPI 7 already) in the ebuild: |
45 |
> How can the ebuild get such a use case right, especially with EAPI 7? |
46 |
|
47 |
What's wrong with putting it in both? |
48 |
|
49 |
> Thanks! |
50 |
> /haubi/ |
51 |
> |
52 |
-- |
53 |
Thanks, |
54 |
Zac |