From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-54814-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
	by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3FE9138010
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 17:10:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1904AE0175;
	Tue, 18 Sep 2012 17:09:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EF2F21C027;
	Tue, 18 Sep 2012 17:07:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.178.2] (graaff.xs4all.nl [83.163.136.193])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	(Authenticated sender: graaff)
	by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D4F8633CEDC;
	Tue, 18 Sep 2012 17:07:17 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <1347988034.22063.5.camel@localhost>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal
From: Hans de Graaff <graaff@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Cc: gentoo-pms@lists.gentoo.org
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 19:07:14 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20120918114742.7e87a411@pomiocik.lan>
References: <20120916135211.GC23030@localhost>
	 <20120918102551.500ff19b@pomiocik.lan> <20120918092426.GA5384@localhost>
	 <20120918114742.7e87a411@pomiocik.lan>
Organization: Gentoo
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.4 
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Archives-Salt: b4601163-fe31-40c6-a355-c5d8ab7a6635
X-Archives-Hash: c517b2057c60d16cb444fe63057c9bcd

On Tue, 2012-09-18 at 11:47 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:

> Yes, and sometimes we're doing 'use test'. I simply don't see how
> adding a separate group of dependencies just for 'test' phase is going
> to help us. They fit just fine into build-time dependencies right now.

It would enable us to consider making tests on some packages optional to
break circular dependencies with FEATURES=test, i.e. only run the tests
if the test dependencies can be installed without circular dependencies.

https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=175808

Hans