| 1 |
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 14:40:25 -0300 |
| 2 |
Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 18:03:51 +0200 |
| 5 |
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 12:46:41 -0300 |
| 8 |
> > Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > > I actually do like the concept but I'm not sure we can reach |
| 11 |
> > > consensus about '*DEPEND vs DEPENDENCIES'; a possibility to get |
| 12 |
> > > people used to it could be to have two parallel EAPIs, like 6 and |
| 13 |
> > > 6-dependencies, where the former will keep the old style and the |
| 14 |
> > > latter use DEPENDENCIES. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > With eclasses supporting both of them? That's more than crazy. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> depstr=cat/foo |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> case $EAPI in |
| 21 |
> *-dependencies) DEPENDENCIES="build+run: $depstr";; |
| 22 |
> *) DEPEND="$depstr" |
| 23 |
> RDEPEND="$depstr";; |
| 24 |
> esac |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Yes, we have many eclasses where this is actually the only expected |
| 27 |
result. Maybe start with python.eclass, that should be quite an extreme |
| 28 |
example. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Best regards, |
| 32 |
Michał Górny |
Archives