[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: RFC: auto-detection of unpack dependencies

[Tiziano Müller]

Patrick Börjesson wrote:

> On 2008-07-15 21:40, Tiziano Müller uttered these thoughts:
>> Marius Mauch wrote:
>>
>> > As a result of Cardoes earlier mail we talked a bit about possible
>> > solutions in #gento-portage, and I suggested to let portage
>> > automatically inject the deps based on SRC_URI pattern matching.
>> > A mapping of extensions and their unpack deps would be kept in the tree
>> > (e.g. mapping '.tar.bz2' to '( app-arch/tar app-arch/bzip2 )'
> [snip]
>> > So, is this something ebuild maintainers would like in general, or does
>> > such a feature cause you nightmares?
>>
>> Yes. I think that's something which should be done manually.
>
> Indeed, the correct solution would be to state the deps manually in each
> ebuild that requires the dep. But in this case it would mean adjusting
> the DEPEND string of pretty much the entire tree. Until such measures
> are stated required, this would be a good middle ground, no?
no. How about just introducing the new deps on their next version or
revision bump? (I assume that more than half of the packages would be fixed
within the next half year and that's more than fast enough).

>
> The same thing would apply to gcc if all "real" depends were to be
> required in all ebuilds, but that would pretty much have to be manually
> stated since the PM wouldn't be able to judge that by automatic
> measures. This, on the other hand, can (at least partially) be handled
> automatically for the ebuild-devs on the PM side of things.
That's a different thing:
A dependency on gcc just ensures that gcc is installed not that it is
actually used to build a package.
And for such a dependency we'd need new ways to express deps since gcc is
only needed when building packages not when it gets installed from a
binpkg.
But this is not an argument for an automagic dep.

-- 
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list