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 |