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 53E52138010 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 08:27:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0250CE08EB; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 08:27:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79156E08DD for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 08:26:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pomiocik.lan (213-238-104-238.adsl.inetia.pl [213.238.104.238]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D18E233D383; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 08:26:51 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 10:27:55 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] HDEPEND (host dependencies for cross-compilation) for EAPI 5? Message-ID: <20120906102755.7cf36ca5@pomiocik.lan> In-Reply-To: <20120906090040.11c07981@googlemail.com> References: <50411874.4060204@gentoo.org> <20120831214611.088b3f50@googlemail.com> <50469795.2070901@gentoo.org> <20120905181543.5394051e@pomiocik.lan> <20120906065851.4d20e750@googlemail.com> <20120906093925.77ca0854@pomiocik.lan> <20120906090040.11c07981@googlemail.com> Organization: Gentoo 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-SHA256; boundary="Sig_/cVmH1esNaGf4spsC2TFbDJ9"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 3a8d64f3-e2f6-4958-911c-d8c9f561ed54 X-Archives-Hash: 5194888cb24106122400f5ea5dfe211f --Sig_/cVmH1esNaGf4spsC2TFbDJ9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 09:00:40 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 09:39:25 +0200 > Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > > On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 06:58:51 +0100 > > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 18:15:43 +0200 > > > Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > > > > If we really want to go this route, then please at least require > > > > explicit label at start of DEPENDENCIES. And the same when > > > > appending to DEPENDENCIES -- just so 'unlikely' mistakes will > > > > leave us with hours of debugging. > > >=20 > > > We should take the exheres-0 rules for labels and eclasses, which > > > limit labels' scopes to blocks, and which introduce an extra ( ) > > > block around the outside when doing eclass variable merging. > >=20 > > Because? I believe we should take 'Gentoo rules', including required > > explicit build+run at the start. >=20 > You mean, you want to invent some new rules that don't quite work, > rather than using the ones that do... The whole "initial labels" thing > isn't an issue for exheres-0, since rather than appending, the > resulting metadata variable ends up with extra ( ) blocks like this: >=20 > ( > stuff/from-the-exheres > ) > ( > stuff/from-exlib-1 > ) > ( > stuff/from-exlib-2 > ) >=20 > so there's no possibility of labels ending up applied to the wrong > thing. >=20 > If you just append, you'd have to have some way of validating that > eclasses all individually specify an initial label. That's not > something that can easily be done. In that format there is not a single thing which *can be done easily*. But what I was saying is that I dislike the implicit 'no label =3D=3D build+run'. It's unclear, very unclear. Why the heck: ( foo/bar ) introduces another label than: use? ( foo/bar ) ? > > > > Remember that this requirement will actually cause migration to > > > > EAPI 5 to be even harder than to any previous EAPIs. Migrating a > > > > single ebuild will require rewriting the dependencies, and > > > > migrating an eclass will require adding a lot of dirty code. > > >=20 > > > Migrating to EAPI 5 requires rewriting dependencies anyway if > > > we're adding in HDEPEND. Also, earlier EAPIs have introduced new > > > phase functions, which is a far ickier change for ebuilds than > > > this. > >=20 > > Do you really believe in HDEPEND in EAPI 5? I've already postponed > > this in my mind. Also, not every single ebuild will actually need > > it. >=20 > *shrug* if all the new *DEPEND stuff ends up in EAPI 6, then there's > no point in DEPENDENCIES for EAPI 5. But we'll have to sort this out > sooner or later... Yes, there's more time for a meaningful discussion without switching everything upside-down just because you did it. --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --Sig_/cVmH1esNaGf4spsC2TFbDJ9 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iJwEAQEIAAYFAlBIXosACgkQfXuS5UK5QB1tbQQAlvtr/6RWkeO+iDVxZm15W3wM 0+z9X2UCrLFaiodIIsJrTiLrcrcEVybG+icEYqd35mh/VLwVnzoisp8yKKkikOnj JNhY0tNwBNMqqBc9m9r142cv8TJ4KOQ6v1q0zhtF/zVURapJ1DxyV7jrNm+pkmAL NWxQwTiOd2IXUqX1g28= =nKFS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/cVmH1esNaGf4spsC2TFbDJ9--