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 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IDg6F-0002TQ-Ul for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:36:20 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l6PCZIWi008215; Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:35:18 GMT Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com (wa-out-1112.google.com [209.85.146.178]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l6PCXOVk005898 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:33:25 GMT Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id k34so181778wah for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2007 05:33:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=s4J2BteDwL39VSLNB3rxllN+EBVbwrVZjmxyOn+DOtbWng1+d+8sH0P8fmyb7P83JvNZ+h9Q8krWnovLlUO5fCnDROg44zePzCd1Gktf72z+in5zTR5ZiufSGoQmKi85wI19cjW02VdByPOghwTLzhs/oldstYZqJcGnqgf5QMg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=Zwns7QweFEpkfE3I2rA07SdLKroc5bnV/3cWPrvX2O7ahGxugVJMchLYQFECkS8HeShklMoyO3Qm0gIkiotbwFOkLg4PUqo2KQFa6ZFHl0SBnTdA+a2S9sFg0yyuladWlruvzUTPMVe3lKXsugl+h4SbCF0AvbtY4a6V3xZdmSI= Received: by 10.115.107.1 with SMTP id j1mr600609wam.1185366804401; Wed, 25 Jul 2007 05:33:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from seldon ( [71.141.141.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z20sm1262462pod.2007.07.25.05.33.18 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 25 Jul 2007 05:33:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 05:32:48 -0700 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] New PDEPEND behaviour. Message-ID: <20070725123248.GA17517@seldon> References: <200707251408.41171.peper@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="ew6BAiZeqk4r7MaW" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200707251408.41171.peper@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Archives-Salt: d71c4063-2df6-4a3f-8e0b-11a660729ac8 X-Archives-Hash: f8f6e29e27edb529ea3e1972454bf24e --ew6BAiZeqk4r7MaW Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 02:08:39PM +0200, Piotr Jaroszy??ski wrote: > Hello, >=20 > As a result of bug #180045 PDEPENDs can be now merged even before the pac= kage=20 > that pulls them. Zmedico says that's intended behaviour and PDEPEND is re= ally=20 > a RDEPEND, but with a ability to resolve circular deps: > circular DEPEND <-> RDEPEND can't be resolved while circular DEPEND <->= =20 > PDEPEND can. > Random behaviour occurs when there is a circular RDEPEND <-> PDEPEND, e.g= =2E bug=20 > #186517. >=20 > We need to update docs or harass zmedico to force PDEPEND to be pulled as= soon=20 > as possible but not before the pkg that pulls it. PDEPEND (just like RDEPEND), can, and always has been *able* to be=20 satisfied prior to the node that requires it- the name may suck, but=20 it's better then BREAK_RDEPEND_CYCLES, thus PDEPEND; it's never been=20 viewed as a literal "it must be post" however. Semi curious when the=20 ebuild manpage picked up that description also- would expect its just=20 a bad choice of words. If in doubt, suggest you do some experiments with earlier portage=20 versions, explicitly trying to force a node that is PDEPEND'd upon to=20 come prior- ought to occur fine. Basically, you're arguing based upon=20 *most* PDEPEND'd nodes dep'ing on the original PDEPENDer (a cycle,=20 thus with PDEPEND breaking it, the PDEPEND target coming first due to=20 resolution rules) - not on rules of PDEPEND. Either way, proposing that PDEPEND (a cycle breaking RDEPEND), be=20 literal post is likely going trigger some fun fallout with the=20 existing consumers of it. Suggest you investigate those before=20 pushing this idea further. On the offchance there isn't nasty fallout from your proposal, still=20 view it as -1 for the change. ~harring --ew6BAiZeqk4r7MaW Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGp0LwsiLx3HvNzgcRAvPIAJ9AuWgPRTDfeUgxCV54zO+shpD1XwCfdKg4 Ze0eV1Ke4oNzSRbjdlkWr2A= =UQGa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ew6BAiZeqk4r7MaW-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list