Re: [gentoo-dev] RDEPEND definition in docs differ from official PMS specs

["Santiago M. Mola" <coldwind@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1785 bytes --]

El sáb, 17-01-2009 a las 16:41 +0100, Thomas Sachau escribió:
> Marius Mauch schrieb:
> > On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 14:09:49 +0100
> > Thomas Sachau <tommy@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> as specified in the PMS spec [1] and stated in #gentoo-portage,
> >> RDEPEND will be set to DEPEND, if it is not defined in the ebuild
> >> itself. But devmanual [2] and developer handbook [3] both state, you
> >> have do explicitly set RDEPEND because it may be removed in the
> >> future. Since package manager have to follow the PMS spec, i would
> >> suggest to change those docs [2][3] and let them follow the PMS spec.
> >>
> >> Any problems, suggestions or anything else about this?
> > 
> > It's strongly recommended to set both explicitly as the behavior could
> > change in future EAPI versions, and to ensure that you actually think
> > about which deps are build deps and which are runtime deps.
> > Also there is nothing wrong with policies being stricter than the
> > underlying spec.
> > 
> > Marius
> > 
> > 
> 
> If i want to use some future EAPI (give me some reasons, why this should be changed there by
> default), i should think about it. But most ebuilds will stay with the default. I do think about
> runtime deps and build deps. In my eyes, this is similar to src_unpack and src_compile. They have
> defaults, noone specifies the defaults, even if they are changed in some EAPI.
> 

You may want to change the wording in docs to make it say it's
encouraged to set both but it's not technically needed.

Note that PMS is *not* a good practice guidelenes. There are a bunch of
things that are technically valid but wrong from a QA point of view.

Regards,
-- 
Santiago Moisés Mola
Jabber: cooldwind@gmail.com | GPG: AAD203B5

[-- Attachment #2: Esta parte del mensaje está firmada digitalmente --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]