| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
|
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1
|
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 16:08:53 -0400
|
| 5 |
Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote:
|
| 6 |
> Bringing it back to the issue it's solving: |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Afaict, for migration: |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> - - DEPEND changes to HDEPEND |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
If we're going by Chromium, AFAICS they're only making this change when
|
| 13 |
they find they actually need it to get the resolver to give "the right
|
| 14 |
answer", and otherwise leaving DEPEND as-is. This strikes me as being
|
| 15 |
heavily in Doing It Wrong territory.
|
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> - - the new DEPEND now will be used for things that are *currently* in |
| 18 |
> RDEPEND and DEPEND (so that things will work) but are not actually |
| 19 |
> run-time dependencies. Said atoms will then be removed from RDEPEND |
| 20 |
> (and not be included in the new HDEPEND either) as they aren't really |
| 21 |
> supposed to be there in the first place. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I'm not entirely sure that there are more than a handful of very
|
| 24 |
special cases that would be covered by the second point. Can anyone
|
| 25 |
provide examples?
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
- --
|
| 28 |
Ciaran McCreesh
|
| 29 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
| 30 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
iEYEARECAAYFAlBKVbQACgkQ96zL6DUtXhHcUwCfdNq3MSMyYBAx19ImoOtWFMRM
|
| 33 |
l2UAoM6DfYJOCL4tLwZ3s6Jeh/6CzBCI
|
| 34 |
=FIrN
|
| 35 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives