Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Dependencies that're available at pkg_*inst
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 10:56:45
Message-Id: 20080427115556.13667557@snowcone
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: Dependencies that're available at pkg_*inst by Steve Long
1 On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 10:41:57 +0100
2 Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote:
3 > Use PDEPEND.
4
5 PDEPEND has a different meaning, and isn't suitable for runtime
6 dependencies.
7
8 > While I like labels they need to be discussed more on-list as well as
9 > on bugzilla (it's not reasonable for you simply to advertise them and
10 > then close down discussion.) For instance, there is no reason
11 > everything has to be loaded into just one extant metadatum, not do
12 > they preclude new metadata (such as a SRC_DEP here.)
13
14 Labels can be discussed on-list whenever there's a chance in hell of
15 Portage implementing any non-trivial new features.
16
17 Anyway, I'm going with the second wording in the original email. It
18 seems fairly clear that most people aren't understanding the issue, and
19 are jumping in and offering opinions without having looked at the tree
20 (and no, I'm not going to give examples, because that'll just
21 degenerate into "oh, so we can change this one particular case to do
22 $blah", whilst missing the bigger point). Of everything suggested, only
23 the two original wordings are correct, and of those two, the second is
24 better defined.
25
26 --
27 Ciaran McCreesh

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Dependencies that're available at pkg_*inst Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk>