From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JnoPE-0007hE-5D for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 21 Apr 2008 05:17:32 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6B370E0207; Mon, 21 Apr 2008 05:17:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F285E0207 for ; Mon, 21 Apr 2008 05:17:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gentoo.org (c-71-193-142-160.hsd1.or.comcast.net [71.193.142.160]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBB3066D77 for ; Mon, 21 Apr 2008 05:17:29 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 22:17:27 -0700 From: Donnie Berkholz To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Dependencies that're available at pkg_*inst Message-ID: <20080421051727.GA10765@comet> References: <20080419053116.50e0ffe6@snowcone> <20080419044512.GD29470@supernova> <20080419055420.29ab56e1@snowcone> <20080419052720.GE29470@supernova> <20080419063300.6d2a2525@snowcone> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080419063300.6d2a2525@snowcone> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-Archives-Salt: 11ecf71c-f6dd-4b55-a651-b5105802c6f0 X-Archives-Hash: dcc649441fcc506752ac1d1f8889310c On 06:33 Sat 19 Apr , Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 22:27:21 -0700 > Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > My interpretation is pkg_* counts as runtime (I can imagine a package > > wanting to run itself at this point), so packages in RDEPEND should > > be usable at that point. > > Which would be fine, except it makes the tree unusable. Isn't this part of the first situation offered (RDEPEND+DEPEND, rather than RDEPEND|DEPEND)? I don't think I understand the difference between the effects of these two options. Could you describe a scenario where one would make things possible and the other wouldn't? Here's my attempt from an ebuild dev's POV, not from an ebuild dependency POV: The way I'm thinking, the RDEPEND|DEPEND case means an ebuild developer would have no idea which list would be used, so you'd have something like COMMON_DEPEND to describe the pkg_*-used dependency, which would be in both RDEPEND and DEPEND. This would allow both RDEPEND and DEPEND to have unique dependencies, which seems like it could be beneficial. It would probably require fixing the tree for packages that currently assume RDEPEND will be available, although I don't expect that many packages will have unique RDEPEND settings (mainly binaries). I guess the RDEPEND+DEPEND case would save an ebuild dev the work of specifying the COMMON_DEPEND list, but other than that, I can't think of any benefits. It would force both RDEPEND and DEPEND to be installed for binpkgs, which sucks. Thanks, Donnie -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list