Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: gentoo-pms@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-pms] Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 03:08:47
Message-Id: 20120917030821.GA15027@localhost
1 On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 07:32:39PM +0300, Alex Alexander wrote:
2 > On Sep 16, 2012 4:55 PM, "Brian Harring" <[1]ferringb@×××××.com> wrote:
3 > >
4 > > Folks-
5 > >
6 > > Keeping it short and quick, a basic glep has been written for what
7 > I'm
8 > > proposing for DEPENDENCIES enhancement.
9 > >
10 > > The live version of the doc is available at
11 > >
12 > [2]http://dev.gentoo.org/~ferringb/unified-dependencies/extensible_depe
13 > ndencies.html
14 >
15 > Am I the only one who thinks that this dep:{build,...} thing looks
16 > really ugly and is hard to read?
17 >
18 > IMO simply removing the "dep" part would greatly improve things:
19
20 That 'dep' part isn't great, but it's added for a reason; to unify
21 with USE_EXPAND/use group intended syntax. There's a reference in
22 there to
23 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/260069#260069 which
24 I'll formalize soon enough.
25
26
27 > DEPENDENCIES="
28 > :build,run? ( ... )
29 > :run? ( ... )
30 > "
31
32 For your suggestion, consider it if we *do* fxi USE expand- via using
33 the same <namespace>:<setting> form.
34
35 Using app-admin/mcollective ad an example, it's deps are thus:
36
37 DEPEND="ruby_targets_ruby18? ( dev-lang/ruby:1.8 )
38 ruby_targets_ree18? ( dev-lang/ruby-enterprise:1.8 )"
39 RDEPEND="dev-ruby/stomp
40 ruby_targets_ruby18? ( dev-lang/ruby:1.8 )
41 ruby_targets_ree18? ( dev-lang/ruby-enterprise:1.8 )"
42
43 Which, if USE_EXPAND targets were groupped, would go from this
44 ruby_targets_ruby18? ( dev-lang/ruby:1.8 )
45 ruby_targets_ree18? ( dev-lang/ruby-enterprise:1.8 )
46 dep:run? ( dev-ruby/stomp )"
47
48 to this:
49 ruby:targets_ruby18? ( dev-lang/ruby:1.8 )
50 ruby:targets_ree18? ( dev-lang/ruby-enterprise:1.8 )
51 :run? ( dev-ruby/stomp )
52
53
54
55 > s/:/@/ would also be interesting
56
57 Just a note; the character choosen was *intentionally* one that isn't
58 a valid use character. @ is a valid character due to linguas. See
59 the thread I referenced (ciaran's response, then my response).
60
61 Short version; to use @, we need use subgroups; thus
62 linguas@ca@valencia .
63
64
65 > DEPENDENCIES="
66 > @build,run? ( ... )
67 > @run? ( ... )
68 > "
69
70 DEPENDENCIES="
71 ruby@targets_ruby18? ( dev-lang/ruby:1.8 )
72 ruby@targets_ree18? ( dev-lang/ruby-enterprise:1.8 )
73 @run? ( dev-ruby/stomp )"
74
75 Using equivalent syntax for mcollective.
76
77 I'm not a huge fan of dep:, and I'm a bit wary of a bare
78 @{run,test,whatever} since it carries with it an implicit "this is
79 targetting the dep namespace".
80
81 That said, I'm not opposed to it- just as I said, I'm a bit wary at
82 first glance.
83
84 Comments?
85 ~harring