From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-54756-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB4BE138010
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 03:09:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C0A43E072E;
Mon, 17 Sep 2012 03:09:30 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-pz0-f53.google.com (mail-pz0-f53.google.com [209.85.210.53])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E93B4E04C1;
Mon, 17 Sep 2012 03:08:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dadg9 with SMTP id g9so1173203dad.40
for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 16 Sep 2012 20:08:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version
:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent;
bh=NzZwVWhtUEvRIQLXf2IhxJ9PmHdlt3cVUEtiCTlw1+w=;
b=a9gb11TvfL3VYKJrTy9sWqLz0Ue1waAmdmQAiAr8wHArrlCwlL7lzm6VNNz8AiUKnv
mtPrkXHxxbI2WbwFuOu+t37Oon10jQEwR7/OWhGg4Ooz9aNGdG3xOhI0rrNe8DiMP+Ad
efVxJnkz/GM8xb4tr4hkUqaPXmztDe1ZMtptEMcQtiqOzvXK7DboaxXSseMottc0URPo
mZi9HwHE6NXJR0yJZhIcawRg8sbik+490PdTULOIqshQj4x5Gxm1o3mts2SJ6vp8ZGY5
gJ/bUuHSIC3K3hdgUX5oVbR16nqXvWPOLO8IJs3GbgoCdMbkRFuPlPpgBrNqwUOsslau
rrtA==
Received: by 10.68.241.105 with SMTP id wh9mr19743494pbc.1.1347851290990;
Sun, 16 Sep 2012 20:08:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.gmail.com:587 (74-95-192-101-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [74.95.192.101])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id vd4sm6185268pbc.41.2012.09.16.20.08.08
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
Sun, 16 Sep 2012 20:08:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by smtp.gmail.com:587 (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 16 Sep 2012 20:08:21 -0700
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2012 20:08:21 -0700
From: Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Cc: gentoo-pms@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal
Message-ID: <20120917030821.GA15027@localhost>
References: <20120916135211.GC23030@localhost>
<CAMUzOag1GDyJYRZTDa6zfEgJfqM22mFZ+A9X+ka=HeUA-zq1Hg@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
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: <CAMUzOag1GDyJYRZTDa6zfEgJfqM22mFZ+A9X+ka=HeUA-zq1Hg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Archives-Salt: 07ddb6a4-d076-4d55-b29f-197cee977067
X-Archives-Hash: fa955b9f1e3a5257be355467e19abf56
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