1 |
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:47:42AM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote: |
2 |
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 02:24:26 -0700 |
3 |
> Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
> > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:25:51AM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote: |
6 |
> > > > test depends: to specifically mark those dependencies that are |
7 |
> > > > only needed for when the pkg is being tested; effectively |
8 |
> > > > ephemeral build/run time depends that go away once testing is |
9 |
> > > > completed. |
10 |
> > > |
11 |
> > > Does that mean that USE=test is going away somehow? |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> > If you think it through, a test use flag still is needed in the cases |
14 |
> > where the rdep itself would change if test was enabled; such a source |
15 |
> > is fairy rare, but not always just someone being moronic- certain |
16 |
> > cases to do testing, the tests need to reach in fairly deeply and |
17 |
> > recompilation for compile vs test isn't exposed. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> Yes, and sometimes we're doing 'use test'. I simply don't see how |
20 |
> adding a separate group of dependencies just for 'test' phase is going |
21 |
> to help us. |
22 |
> They fit just fine into build-time dependencies right now. |
23 |
|
24 |
I'm going to assume you typo'd "build-time" into "run-time"; on the |
25 |
offchance you've never written actual test code, to test the code you |
26 |
have to *run* the results. |
27 |
|
28 |
Simple example, portage doesn't need eselect nor logrotate, nor afaik |
29 |
selinux or paxutils, till runtime since it doesn't test those |
30 |
pathways. |
31 |
|
32 |
A non-crap resolver can exploit that gap when it comes to |
33 |
parallelization. |
34 |
|
35 |
Just heading off an email from you, no, you cannot just stick it into |
36 |
RDEPEND then. |
37 |
|
38 |
If you did so, the test deps would be locked into the required runtime |
39 |
graph for as long as the pkg was installed. |
40 |
|
41 |
If in doubt of how that matters; trace the usage of gtest, nose, etc. |
42 |
Nose is a good example additionally since a properly setup setup.py, |
43 |
the pkg doesn't need nose for build- just strictly for test. |
44 |
|
45 |
|
46 |
|
47 |
> > > A quick |
48 |
> > > glance shows that what you have expanded there, a fairly reasonable |
49 |
> > > Gentoo dev will solve using: |
50 |
> > > |
51 |
> > > RDEPEND="[common depends]" |
52 |
> > > DEPEND="${RDEPEND} |
53 |
> > > [build only depends]" |
54 |
> > |
55 |
> > from diffball (under current EAPIs) |
56 |
> > |
57 |
> > """ |
58 |
> > RDEPEND=">=sys-libs/zlib-1.1.4 |
59 |
> > >=app-arch/bzip2-1.0.2 |
60 |
> > app-arch/xz-utils" |
61 |
> > DEPEND="${RDEPEND} |
62 |
> > virtual/pkgconfig" |
63 |
> > """ |
64 |
> > |
65 |
> > becomes the following under the proposal: |
66 |
> > |
67 |
> > """ |
68 |
> > DEPENDENCIES=">=sys-libs/zlib-1.1.4 |
69 |
> > >=app-arch/bzip2-1.0.2 |
70 |
> > app-arch/xz-utils" |
71 |
> > dep:build? ( virtual/pkgconfig )" |
72 |
> > """ |
73 |
> |
74 |
> Err, shouldn't the first three deps be namespaced? |
75 |
|
76 |
No. |
77 |
|
78 |
Please read the glep, specifically the section "basic rules". |
79 |
|
80 |
|
81 |
Also, you come up with a valid criticism, valid point, etc, something |
82 |
*worthwhile*, I'll respond. If it doesn't meet that criteria, assume |
83 |
I won't respond (feel free to bitch to the council during whatever |
84 |
vote occurs for this GLEP that I ignored your noise; it's a risk I'll |
85 |
willingly take). |
86 |
|
87 |
~harring |