From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DpEi2-0007g5-AI for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 00:21:14 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j640JexF010674; Mon, 4 Jul 2005 00:19:40 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j640HVMl030897 for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2005 00:17:31 GMT Received: from adsl-67-39-48-193.dsl.milwwi.ameritech.net ([67.39.48.193] helo=exodus) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1DpEeq-0002BI-2h for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 00:17:56 +0000 Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 19:18:10 -0500 From: "Brian D. Harring" To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] splitting build deps out from depends Message-ID: <20050704001810.GA25834@exodus.wit.org> References: <20050701162524.GB11634@exodus.wit.org> <200507011349.19312.vapier@gentoo.org> <20050701225900.GA8904@phaenix.haell.com> <0D6744A2-C090-4BBB-A085-E16D130683AC@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="YZ5djTAD1cGYuMQK" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0D6744A2-C090-4BBB-A085-E16D130683AC@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-Archives-Salt: 52177a9a-b52f-4268-879b-e712b2970be3 X-Archives-Hash: 00ff69cdf133bc90b7b1208dbb5b9c28 --YZ5djTAD1cGYuMQK Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 08:16:46PM -0500, Kito wrote: > Accurate deps should be a goal for the tree, a long term one =20 > obviously... Picking at the words (not you), but "long term" =3D=3D it gets ignored=20 till someone starts screaming/foaming at the mouth. If BDEPEND were added, it's extra data that next version of=20 portage could use to do crazy stuff, and it wouldn't screw up existing=20 portage in anyway. What crazy stuff? Aside from having _full_ deps so we can trust=20 portage not to do something stupid if the profile is missing, BDEPEND=20 provides classification of a set of atoms that must be native to a=20 system. Since there is a seperation of what is effectively chost (bdepend) and=20 ctarget (depend), you're giving portage a classification of depends=20 for a package that it can use to do (what I'm calling) interdomain=20 deps. In other words for an arm x-compile target's BDEPENDs can be mapped=20 back to the native host of the box. It allows the possibility for=20 portage to natively support x-compile. Without it, it's not possible natively in portage, nor is the solution=20 totally clean (imo at least). So... getting back to the long term bit, input in the here and now as=20 to why this will never be implemented is required. Just to point out=20 a bit again, the metapkg proposal will allow grouping of=20 arbitrary atoms, so a virtual/c-toolchain could be used to collapse=20 binutils/glibc/etc down to a single atom (indirection rocks, no? :) ~harring --YZ5djTAD1cGYuMQK Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCyIBCvdBxRoA3VU0RAlRrAKCL+e9eLPp2IP4cBjTQ5VVtO7k8AACgksT8 5jz3zvpVQJ0x/UkrlrzbAbc= =evr1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --YZ5djTAD1cGYuMQK-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list