Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal

[Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 07:32:39PM +0300, Alex Alexander wrote:
>    On Sep 16, 2012 4:55 PM, "Brian Harring" <[1]ferringb@gmail.com> wrote:
>    >
>    > Folks-
>    >
>    > Keeping it short and quick, a basic glep has been written for what
>    I'm
>    > proposing for DEPENDENCIES enhancement.
>    >
>    > The live version of the doc is available at
>    >
>    [2]http://dev.gentoo.org/~ferringb/unified-dependencies/extensible_depe
>    ndencies.html
> 
>    Am I the only one who thinks that this dep:{build,...} thing looks
>    really ugly and is hard to read?
> 
>    IMO simply removing the "dep" part would greatly improve things:

That 'dep' part isn't great, but it's added for a reason; to unify 
with USE_EXPAND/use group intended syntax.  There's a reference in 
there to 
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/260069#260069 which 
I'll formalize soon enough.


>    DEPENDENCIES="
>    :build,run? ( ... )
>    :run? ( ... )
>    "

For your suggestion, consider it if we *do* fxi USE expand- via using 
the same <namespace>:<setting> form.

Using app-admin/mcollective ad an example, it's deps are thus:

DEPEND="ruby_targets_ruby18? ( dev-lang/ruby:1.8 )
        ruby_targets_ree18? ( dev-lang/ruby-enterprise:1.8 )"
RDEPEND="dev-ruby/stomp
        ruby_targets_ruby18? ( dev-lang/ruby:1.8 )
        ruby_targets_ree18? ( dev-lang/ruby-enterprise:1.8 )"

Which, if USE_EXPAND targets were groupped, would go from this
  ruby_targets_ruby18? ( dev-lang/ruby:1.8 )
  ruby_targets_ree18? ( dev-lang/ruby-enterprise:1.8 )
  dep:run? ( dev-ruby/stomp )"

to this:
  ruby:targets_ruby18? ( dev-lang/ruby:1.8 )
  ruby:targets_ree18? ( dev-lang/ruby-enterprise:1.8 )
  :run? ( dev-ruby/stomp )



>    s/:/@/ would also be interesting

Just a note; the character choosen was *intentionally* one that isn't 
a valid use character.  @ is a valid character due to linguas.  See 
the thread I referenced (ciaran's response, then my response).

Short version; to use @, we need use subgroups; thus
linguas@ca@valencia .


>    DEPENDENCIES="
>    @build,run? ( ... )
>    @run? ( ... )
>    "

DEPENDENCIES="
  ruby@targets_ruby18? ( dev-lang/ruby:1.8 )
  ruby@targets_ree18? ( dev-lang/ruby-enterprise:1.8 )
  @run? ( dev-ruby/stomp )"

Using equivalent syntax for mcollective.

I'm not a huge fan of dep:, and I'm a bit wary of a bare 
@{run,test,whatever} since it carries with it an implicit "this is 
targetting the dep namespace".

That said, I'm not opposed to it- just as I said, I'm a bit wary at 
first glance.

Comments?
~harring