1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
|
2 |
Hash: SHA1
|
3 |
|
4 |
On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 13:51:01 -0400
|
5 |
Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote:
|
6 |
> On 30/09/12 05:53 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
7 |
> > On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 14:42:14 -0700 Brian Harring |
8 |
> > <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
9 |
> >>> The second is that it starts the conceptual shift from "cat/pkg |
10 |
> >>> is a build dep, and cat/pkg is a run dep" to "cat/pkg is a dep |
11 |
> >>> that is required for build and run". |
12 |
> >> |
13 |
> >> Fairly weak argument at best; you're claiming that via labels, |
14 |
> >> "contextually they know it's these deps" in comparison to via |
15 |
> >> dep:build "contextually they know it's exposed only in build". |
16 |
> >> |
17 |
> >> Same difference. |
18 |
> > |
19 |
> > It's rather a big deal now that we have := dependencies. |
20 |
> > |
21 |
> |
22 |
> So you would using your labels syntax, specify an atom with a := dep |
23 |
> using certain labels and the same atom without ':=' on other labels? |
24 |
> I don't quite follow what you're getting at here as to how this is a |
25 |
> big deal.. |
26 |
|
27 |
A := only makes sense for a dependency that is present both at build
|
28 |
time and at runtime. Currently, the only place you should be seeing
|
29 |
a := is on a spec that is listed in both DEPEND and RDEPEND.
|
30 |
|
31 |
Conceptually, the := applies to "the spec that is in both DEPEND and
|
32 |
RDEPEND". But with the current syntax, there's no such thing as "the
|
33 |
spec that is in both". There are two specs, which happen to be
|
34 |
identical as strings, one in DEPEND and one in RDEPEND, and there's no
|
35 |
way for the two to be associated.
|
36 |
|
37 |
- --
|
38 |
Ciaran McCreesh
|
39 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
40 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
|
41 |
|
42 |
iEYEARECAAYFAlBrKsEACgkQ96zL6DUtXhEyOACfQgN7K9iPf0o8NF4w95HpFq3j
|
43 |
MHQAoKwMwmbJHuF65PIX9b6W0EQLqukl
|
44 |
=pzQn
|
45 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |