| 1 |
On 09/18/2012 01:10 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:58:30 -0700 |
| 3 |
> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> On 09/18/2012 12:44 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:40:51 -0700 |
| 6 |
>>> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
>>>> On 09/18/2012 12:29 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 8 |
>>>>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:25:57 -0700 |
| 9 |
>>>>> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 10 |
>>>>>> Also, if we change the meaning of RDEPEND in the next EAPI, so |
| 11 |
>>>>>> that it's a hard build-time dep like DEPEND, then |
| 12 |
>>>>>> DEPEND="${RDEPEND} virtual/pkgconfig" can be reduced to |
| 13 |
>>>>>> DEPEND="virtual/pkgconfig". This is what I would like to do for |
| 14 |
>>>>>> the experimental EAPI 5-hdepend which is planned [1]. |
| 15 |
>>>>> |
| 16 |
>>>>> What're we going to do about the zillions of unsolvable cycles |
| 17 |
>>>>> that that would create? (Does Portage detect those and error out |
| 18 |
>>>>> yet?) |
| 19 |
>>>> |
| 20 |
>>>> Yeah, it would be treated just like a DEPEND cycle, which is |
| 21 |
>>>> already detected and treated as a fatal error. As a result, when |
| 22 |
>>>> bumping the EAPI of an ebuild, you may have to migrate some deps |
| 23 |
>>>> from RDEPEND to PDEPEND in order to solve the cycles. |
| 24 |
>>> |
| 25 |
>>> What about the large number of RDEPENDs that are required for a |
| 26 |
>>> package to be usable, but not for it to be installed? |
| 27 |
>> |
| 28 |
>> You will have to migrate those deps from RDEPEND to PDEPEND. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> ...but PDEPENDs aren't guaranteed to be installed before a package is |
| 31 |
> used to satisfy a dependency. (And we can't change PDEPEND to do what |
| 32 |
> RDEPEND currently does, because then some cycles can't be solved at |
| 33 |
> all.) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Hmm, I think you're probably right. Let's just forget this idea then. :) |
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Thanks, |
| 38 |
Zac |
Archives