Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal

[Ciaran McCreesh]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:51:04 +0200
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 20:44:33 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:40:51 -0700
> > Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote:
> > > On 09/18/2012 12:29 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:25:57 -0700
> > > > Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote:
> > > >> Also, if we change the meaning of RDEPEND in the next EAPI, so
> > > >> that it's a hard build-time dep like DEPEND, then
> > > >> DEPEND="${RDEPEND} virtual/pkgconfig" can be reduced to
> > > >> DEPEND="virtual/pkgconfig". This is what I would like to do for
> > > >> the experimental EAPI 5-hdepend which is planned [1].
> > > >
> > > > What're we going to do about the zillions of unsolvable cycles
> > > > that that would create? (Does Portage detect those and error out
> > > > yet?)
> > >
> > > Yeah, it would be treated just like a DEPEND cycle, which is
> > > already detected and treated as a fatal error. As a result, when
> > > bumping the EAPI of an ebuild, you may have to migrate some deps
> > > from RDEPEND to PDEPEND in order to solve the cycles.
> >
> > What about the large number of RDEPENDs that are required for a
> > package to be usable, but not for it to be installed?
>
> They will still be RDEPEND, just installed earlier I believe. Except
> for those arising conflicts which will have to be moved to PDEP. But
> I think Zac said that already.

...but you can't move them to be a PDEPEND, since PDEPENDs aren't
guaranteed to be installed when a package is used.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh