Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
Cc: gentoo-pms@l.g.o, Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] Rephrasing *DEPEND
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 06:34:23
Message-Id: 20110620083440.5ef7be94@pomiocik.lan
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-pms] Rephrasing *DEPEND by Ciaran McCreesh
On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 22:36:04 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 23:21:02 +0200 > Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: > > And the third version. > > > > I added a note about the possible circular RDEPEND issue. I wanted > > to do that through a footnote but wasn't able to get it working so > > it's a standard bracket now). > > I still don't think we should be specifying "RDEPEND is PDEPEND if the > package manager feels like it". That's something for the package > mangler to provide as a horrible --ignore-dependencies-to-break-cycles > option.
We either have to mention that or assume the long-outstanding portage behavior is not PMS compliant. And even if we choose the latter option, I think we should have a footnote warning about that there.
> Also, isn't pkg_setup the same as pkg_preinst, availability-wise?
IMO not necessarily. During later pkg_* phases, RDEPEND needs to be satisfied in order to make it possible to call the installed program. I don't really see a reason to make similar assumptions in pkg_setup, and I'd really like to avoid saying 'RDEPEND is for program's runtime dependencies and pkg_setup dependencies'. -- Best regards, Michał Górny


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