1 |
On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 22:36:04 +0100 |
2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 23:21:02 +0200 |
5 |
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
> > And the third version. |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > I added a note about the possible circular RDEPEND issue. I wanted |
9 |
> > to do that through a footnote but wasn't able to get it working so |
10 |
> > it's a standard bracket now). |
11 |
> |
12 |
> I still don't think we should be specifying "RDEPEND is PDEPEND if the |
13 |
> package manager feels like it". That's something for the package |
14 |
> mangler to provide as a horrible --ignore-dependencies-to-break-cycles |
15 |
> option. |
16 |
|
17 |
We either have to mention that or assume the long-outstanding portage |
18 |
behavior is not PMS compliant. And even if we choose the latter option, |
19 |
I think we should have a footnote warning about that there. |
20 |
|
21 |
> Also, isn't pkg_setup the same as pkg_preinst, availability-wise? |
22 |
|
23 |
IMO not necessarily. During later pkg_* phases, RDEPEND needs to be |
24 |
satisfied in order to make it possible to call the installed program. I |
25 |
don't really see a reason to make similar assumptions in pkg_setup, and |
26 |
I'd really like to avoid saying 'RDEPEND is for program's runtime |
27 |
dependencies and pkg_setup dependencies'. |
28 |
|
29 |
-- |
30 |
Best regards, |
31 |
Michał Górny |