1 |
Folks- |
2 |
|
3 |
Keeping it short and quick, a basic glep has been written for what I'm |
4 |
proposing for DEPENDENCIES enhancement. |
5 |
|
6 |
The live version of the doc is available at |
7 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~ferringb/unified-dependencies/extensible_dependencies.html |
8 |
|
9 |
Wording fixes will occur, but the core concept shouldn't change (and |
10 |
if it does, per PEP standards, the changes will be noted/tracked). |
11 |
|
12 |
Please have a read through; it should be clear/concise as to why PM |
13 |
authors are pushing for a unified dependencies to be done, what we can |
14 |
get from it now, what it enables moving forward, and the direct cost |
15 |
to devs should this idea be implemented. |
16 |
|
17 |
Just to be absolutely clear, what I'm proposing is basically zero cost |
18 |
for devs- they can (and should when it's in their benefit) switch to |
19 |
the new syntax when it makes their job easier; it can be used in |
20 |
parallel to existing DEPEND/RDEPEND/PDEPEND both to ease |
21 |
transition/compatibility. |
22 |
|
23 |
In addition, a prototype portage patch has been cut for dependencies |
24 |
support (needs work/full validation), and a matching pkgcore one has |
25 |
been cut. |
26 |
|
27 |
I realize it's a complex subject; if you have questions, please feel |
28 |
to ask. |
29 |
|
30 |
Thanks, and pardon the ancillary/daft noise that has gone with this |
31 |
subject. |
32 |
|
33 |
~harring |