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 1JqSF5-0007Pz-Sg for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:14:00 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 02754E02C3; Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:13:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from hu-out-0506.google.com (hu-out-0506.google.com [72.14.214.238]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89878E02C3 for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:13:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by hu-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 23so1411158huc.1 for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2008 05:13:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer:mime-version:content-type; bh=bymP5ltlHNjZP0F7pgwbd+qgFFETubc0bSjOYVjScAQ=; b=Q5ZZEmOIb/eReW/V4oYlO6ggh2n65UI7mz8yM++5TxW7IoMCcLfIcAMpCSvHZWbPZJ+vs/DNGnO0Jw/cEs4Hm+M6GCJTv7TcMZvszAmFaoovCK5y9DEEBVWzKl/mbJB5HtrL4JW9UkDbaX4qBpenFuZ+t4dHNMov40VQpts0MkE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer:mime-version:content-type; b=e2xBw3SMcVdLKCM7LAGORi1RuCD7CPCvjHog85nhsLY382N1K20qy3Rlx4YVHeZxvDVdwm82QdDyA9stMks3WvsvJvp4NZICm645j5LJlP1skB6vvQI+xZw1rZCqEYbKjJnOZ6ljN1lU/tJPwn5PqNtojz6cBMlk/FDW1giFMsQ= Received: by 10.67.92.4 with SMTP id u4mr4762033ugl.85.1209384836560; Mon, 28 Apr 2008 05:13:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from snowcone ( [213.121.151.206]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s8sm2083169uge.3.2008.04.28.05.13.55 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 28 Apr 2008 05:13:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:13:47 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Dependencies that're available at pkg_*inst Message-ID: <20080428131347.2ddb28ff@snowcone> In-Reply-To: References: <20080419053116.50e0ffe6@snowcone> <480A1FEE.4020604@gentoo.org> <20080420005728.2d4d2c70@snowcone> <20080427115556.13667557@snowcone> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.3.1 (GTK+ 2.12.9; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) 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: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_//YludZ2aBDTY7qr1mnPsEG3"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Archives-Salt: 6d6b541c-bc1d-438c-a702-951ff63b4781 X-Archives-Hash: 6c77b57eca4d93d6f361ef22d21e1843 --Sig_//YludZ2aBDTY7qr1mnPsEG3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 05:57:04 +0100 Steve Long wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 10:41:57 +0100 > > Steve Long wrote: > >> Use PDEPEND. > >=20 > > PDEPEND has a different meaning, and isn't suitable for runtime > > dependencies. > > > "PDEPEND should be avoided in favour of RDEPEND except where this will > create circular dependency chains."[1] > Sounds very much like it is used for runtime deps, and breaking > RDEPEND cycles has often been given as its purpose in #-portage and > #-dev-help, as well as in the devmanual. Yup, but it can't break all circular dependency chains. > >> While I like labels they need to be discussed more on-list as well > >> as on bugzilla (it's not reasonable for you simply to advertise > >> them and then close down discussion.) For instance, there is no > >> reason everything has to be loaded into just one extant metadatum, > >> not do they preclude new metadata (such as a SRC_DEP here.) > >=20 > > Labels can be discussed on-list whenever there's a chance in hell of > > Portage implementing any non-trivial new features. > > > That's not exactly in the spirit of collaboration (nor are your > continuous snipes at portage.) New features should be discussed with > a wider audience than bugzilla, not just used to advertise one impl > and slipped in via an overlay. Further, having a consensus would > allow pkgcore to move ahead with a more solid spec, and that /is/ > conducive to quicker implementation in portage, since those two teams > do know how to collaborate effectively. And if there's any chance that labels will ever be usable in the main tree, that discussion will happen. > 2b) seemed better. With use of PDEPEND in the manner outlined, it > simply means pkg_{pre,post}inst can't rely on the PDEPEND'ed pkgs, > only those in RDEPEND. 2b) isn't an option, since it's wrong. 2) is an option. > Build-time dependencies wouldn't appear to cover the use-cases > brought up, nor are they relevant for binary installs. Which means in some cases binary packages are unusable where source packages wouldn't be. > I can see how it would be easier for the PM to be able to go for one > or the other, but it doesn't give an ebuild author a consistent base. > The intersection does but doesn't allow a package to call itself (one > of the use case brought up.) No, it means ebuilds have to be careful with dependencies if calling themselves. --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_//YludZ2aBDTY7qr1mnPsEG3 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFIFb+A96zL6DUtXhERAuYhAKDgWXl43MOME8wmmUHGlSndzxa/tACgkU/f VIHMqphthVU95Y50Of5wR4A= =sSm/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_//YludZ2aBDTY7qr1mnPsEG3-- -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list