From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AD92138010 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 21:56:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C8910E071E; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 21:56:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-we0-f181.google.com (mail-we0-f181.google.com [74.125.82.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48279E0712 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 21:54:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wera48 with SMTP id a48so1932002wer.40 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:54:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type; bh=p6pScZvqbPLmPfUILCRrijDsW6cKOR6WfaZNFE3ARnk=; b=JE5fUDBMa+OoXu1IDd4XK+wqSba9vkfa6D0FmoZgLkj41zwoawCJtGbFwM10yJI9lb qQMRm4hDq9aL9kQkpno8CwoDiSRi7VPvqyvP7mmsOauQUAHDWrIm6eQxtqHL7e6tc3Ea ix3ExpyE10tPzY5CZnXCqS/BRjNq+YOLPW6lyTq2tee9FxoesOo3bM7X3Ppcr93wlBJC wi3lv7u9mY84H0cuhYeEWFcCUY7RxMlgnCdBvUdnI73hfwn9wMnbyIpRJvxXKuvtHz16 K8A5uFwb8+fvuwXJX1gldhmV9BlEIR0ATjSpj7zmuuwWh4FepdVpwbPmp2cCuXlS9hk2 +/1Q== Received: by 10.216.208.104 with SMTP id p82mr5583754weo.119.1346450092361; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:54:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (cpc13-broo7-2-0-cust130.14-2.cable.virginmedia.com. [82.9.16.131]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o2sm4626857wiz.11.2012.08.31.14.54.51 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:54:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 22:53:05 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] HDEPEND (host dependencies for cross-compilation) for EAPI 5? Message-ID: <20120831225305.684efabc@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <5041288A.6030802@gentoo.org> References: <50411874.4060204@gentoo.org> <20120831214611.088b3f50@googlemail.com> <5041288A.6030802@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.1 (GTK+ 2.24.11; 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; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/iYoc1L9ifS_VTvYEDK/UVO3"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 9e71664f-e269-4447-a929-5df14b9c183f X-Archives-Hash: ace5c05cdc0f1c4f902c5aa066e948c6 --Sig_/iYoc1L9ifS_VTvYEDK/UVO3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:11:38 -0700 Zac Medico wrote: > On 08/31/2012 01:46 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:03:00 -0700 > > What exactly would the rules be for handling a package that is in > > both DEPEND and HDEPEND, when ROOT is in effect? Would the versions > > be expected to match? What about use flags? >=20 > For the sake of simplicity, I would treat them as entirely > independent. It should be easy enough for users to apply manual > configuration adjustments in order to resolve any conflicts of this > nature that may arise. If there turns out to be a strong demand for > additional constraints, we can consider adding them in a future EAPI > (possibly using a combined DEPENDENCIES variable). The thing is... Without some kind of "the same" constraint, we'd be adding a feature which would probably work most of the time only by coincidence. > > Also, we're getting rather a lot of *DEPEND variables here... If > > we're making people make major changes to their deps, which for > > HDEPEND we definitely would be, >=20 > Well, I not sure that "major changes" is a really good > characterization. We're just talking about migrating a few things > from DEPEND to HDEPEND, and it's not strictly required. The migration > is only needed when fulfilling a request to support cross-compilation > in a particular ebuild. Where are you getting "a few" from? Is this "a few seems to be enough to make it work", or "someone carefully analysed lots of packages to work out exactly what dependencies are HDEPEND, and measured it"? I strongly suspect we're in "works by coincidence" territory again -- "adding packages to HDEPEND as breakages are encountered" is a long way from "having an accurate HDEPEND". Are we aiming for the former or the latter? --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_/iYoc1L9ifS_VTvYEDK/UVO3 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlBBMkUACgkQ96zL6DUtXhGY5gCgwWAq/yOxkFH0pQSa85VOM7fs sbMAnRde2V7AadVJAd30PIFwHUAJdsOo =eXLA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/iYoc1L9ifS_VTvYEDK/UVO3--