Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] fixing up portage implicit RDEPEND behavior
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 07:32:33
1 this is not a "implicit vs explicit" thread; if you want that discussion start
2 your own
4 we've said the relationship of DEPEND atoms in ebuilds should be independent
5 of the DEPEND atoms found in eclasses as logically ebuilds should not care
6 what it takes for eclasses to work and vice versa ... for the most part, this
7 is true ...
9 however, semi-recently, a change was made such that the implicit
10 RDEPEND=$DEPEND was dropped from ebuilds if an inherited class set RDEPEND in
11 any way ... that means if you have an ebuild at the moment that does:
12 DEPEND="foo"
13 and you dont inherit any eclasses, then you also get for free:
14 RDEPEND="foo"
16 if you decide to inherit eclasses though, you had better do some research as
17 any eclass that does even RDEPEND="" will change that behavior ... or if you
18 are an eclass writer and you decided to add RDEPEND to your eclass, you had
19 better do a reverse check and make sure that any ebuild that inherits your
20 eclass (directly or indirectly) does not utilize implicit RDEPEND behavior as
21 you would have just broken it ... awesome ;)
23 i posted a patch to fix this regression, but since it took so long before
24 anyone noticed, zmedico wants to see if anyone is opposed (i dont know why
25 they would be, but i cant think of everything)
27 so to recap, the fix here changes it back to the historically documented
28 behavior that the implicit RDEPEND happens in ebuilds regardless of what
29 eclasses do
30 -mike