Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC about another *DEPEND variable

[Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1477 bytes --]

On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 05:38:08PM +0300, Alin Nastac wrote:
> Brian Harring wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 01:38:59PM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
> >   
> > There is one flaw with this though; packages can provide both 
> > libraries _and_ binaries.  Our dependencies don't represent whether 
> > the dep is actual linkage, or just commandline consuming, so (using 
> > the openssl example) any package that invokes openssl via the 
> > commandline to do a few simple chksum ops gets rebuilt, despite the 
> > fact it wasn't affected by linkage change ups.
> >   
> I like BINCOMPAT proposal but it solves only half of the problem. You
> assume that all dependent packages cares about binary compatibility.
> Why not using a BDEPEND var in those dependent packages affected by the
> BINCOMPAT values of their dependencies?
> 
> For instance, I would set the following:
>  - in net-dialup/ppp ebuild:     BINCOMPAT=${PV}
>  - in net-dialup/pptpd ebuild:   BDEPEND="net-dialup/ppp"

BDEPEND was actually a seperate proposal/idea, intention there was to 
have that be the deps that *must* be CHOST (gcc would be an example); 
bits that are used to actually build the pkg, not data it consumes in 
building (headers would be data).

Meanwhile, for this I don't see the point in using a seperate metadata 
key.  Overload DEPEND and add a marker char that is used to indicate 
that a particular dependency is 'binding', ie, it is linkage.

~harring

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]