Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] New emerge --mindeps option for exclusion of build time dependencies (bug #132355)

[Ned Ludd]

On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 08:22 -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Ned Ludd wrote:
> >> Please invert the logic so that rather than changing default behavior
> >> you add a new option choose the types of deps to include.
>
> Can you explain how my proposed change in the default behavior of
> --usepkg is going to hurt things?  The current default behavior is
> inconsistent because build time dependencies are considered for
> packages that are installed but not for binary packages that are about
> to be installed.

And nor should they be unless the user explicitly asks for it.
There basically should be no valid reason to look at build 
deps as we are dealing with a binary pkg because the package 
is already built.

>  By doing away with this one special case for binary packages, the
> dependency calculation will be consistent for installed vs. binary
> packages.
>
> >> I was in favor and thought we were going to do it after 2.1 and the 2006
> >> release under the idea of the variable ACCEPT_DEPENDS
> >
> >> export ACCEPT_DEPENDS="DEPEND RDEPEND PDEPEND"
> >> emerge -K system
>
> While I admire the flexibility of your ACCEPT_DEPENDS proposal, I feel
> that it exposes far too much complexity to the user.

Really? To me it would seem very natural to the Gentoo user who is
already familiar with ACCEPT_KEYWORDS.

>  Eventually, the functionality of emerge will be available as part of
> the portage api and people will probably be able to exploit it to do
> all kinds of crazy things like that.  I just don't feel that it's
> appropriate to expose something like that through the emerge
> interface.  Can you explain why we should expose that much complexity
> through the emerge interface?
>
> >> Whatever we do in the end does not really matter as long
> >> as we don't change default expected behaviors.
>
> Again, can you explain how my proposed change is going to hurt things?

To me it seems like the wrong fix for the problem at hand and 
changes portage's default behavior in an undesired way. 
Don't get me wrong I'm definitely in favor of finer grained control 
over all the dep handling in general, but don't think this option 
should become the default. I'd invert your logic like in Kumba's 
proposed patch did and run with that.



> Zac
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFEtRPH/ejvha5XGaMRAkICAKCutrtehYGHyHN+UQUDjTRvUWxDqwCff4Fv
> 6Z2UUrFPD4UP9aCD2QHi2XM=
> =tRS4
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o>
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list