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 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1GQUdu-0001nX-DO for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 21 Sep 2006 19:55:30 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with SMTP id k8LJrXPk024822; Thu, 21 Sep 2006 19:53:33 GMT Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net (rwcrmhc12.comcast.net [204.127.192.82]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k8LJpYjq017425 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2006 19:51:34 GMT Received: from seldon (c-24-21-135-117.hsd1.or.comcast.net[24.21.135.117]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with SMTP id <20060921195132m1200oqq4pe>; Thu, 21 Sep 2006 19:51:32 +0000 Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 12:51:31 -0700 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC about another *DEPEND variable Message-ID: <20060921195131.GG30105@seldon> References: <45126B07.6030403@gentoo.org> <451279D3.9020605@gentoo.org> <20060921115916.GB30105@seldon> <4512A3D0.9080301@gentoo.org> <20060921145155.GE30105@seldon> <4512C8C4.3040700@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="bFsKbPszpzYNtEU6" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4512C8C4.3040700@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Archives-Salt: 742fcec7-62f9-4862-8d80-06393cd37b3e X-Archives-Hash: 4d5308938c62b7150c69cc3d98b18bcb --bFsKbPszpzYNtEU6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 08:15:48PM +0300, Alin Nastac wrote: > Brian Harring wrote: > > BDEPEND was actually a seperate proposal/idea, intention there was to= =20 > > have that be the deps that *must* be CHOST (gcc would be an example);= =20 > > bits that are used to actually build the pkg, not data it consumes in= =20 > > building (headers would be data). > > =20 > Well, until now I didn't thought at the build compatibility. > My concern was only the runtime compatibility. > > Meanwhile, for this I don't see the point in using a seperate metadata= =20 > > key. Overload DEPEND and add a marker char that is used to indicate=20 > > that a particular dependency is 'binding', ie, it is linkage. > > =20 > Lets suppose we use & as 'binding' dependency marker. What sense would > DEPEND=3D"&net-dialup/ppp" have in a context of an ebuild. It certainly > don't specify the necessity of package rebuild whenever net-dialup/ppp > version is changed. > > Unless you save the specific compatibility version of the net-dialup/ppp > used by net-dialup/pptpd for building the package, I don't see how can > it help me. > Judging after /var/db/pkg content, I have no such information. Any such implementation would require storing some extra data in the=20 vdb.... For this, would just walk the *DEPEND collecting 'binding'=20 dependencies, and storing their BINCOMPAT in a simple mapping. ~harring --bFsKbPszpzYNtEU6 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFEu1DsiLx3HvNzgcRAnnrAJ9/rvVBOJZE0EP8zrvgKVD7iDoMYQCgxgh1 MBabbEe4QhkERoex5mQX14E= =LPXi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --bFsKbPszpzYNtEU6-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list