From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-54809-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 46D79138010 for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 11:08:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C0E89E0268; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 11:07:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pb0-f53.google.com (mail-pb0-f53.google.com [209.85.160.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90938E0733 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 11:06:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pbbro2 with SMTP id ro2so11978883pbb.40 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 04:06:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=+PptQV9itajYsgLq4h/703JGBOjFwmFQPGqIMzn+6Hg=; b=fwZuwZWmBWSrFADfb1BTrLpfDaM4ztGNUUOHUx8oXSlq/Re1+2e1c8ZpsowQnofCjm Fk6CowFqkit5RMo1Pcbmee7/UmAQgUWOmuQeDJHL832Wh3ALo7wCCU7heDp3f6qyFDgl jNW9tQZwg1glDRLUmpbFctT3GOnwOU/SYmMnDWGgO4ZvJTNmEPcBWnWKBI66yPQZTiFI BdbRqwD7Oumo9EYhA0wwuuOl8lEHz/y0cLn5i937MTCLveApN28TUgDBTb/j2PWtXiY3 3vB7K7z3h/4V51BEdFwbMly+GgativC1Jej6j3lICmxxaa4Nz3eSbTY7gW8kDZ8e2F15 TTBw== Received: by 10.66.77.7 with SMTP id o7mr25633759paw.37.1347966385915; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 04:06:25 -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 pa6sm2883095pbc.71.2012.09.18.04.06.23 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 18 Sep 2012 04:06:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtp.gmail.com:587 (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 18 Sep 2012 04:06:37 -0700 Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 04:06:37 -0700 From: Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com> To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal Message-ID: <20120918110637.GF5384@localhost> References: <20120916135211.GC23030@localhost> <20120918102551.500ff19b@pomiocik.lan> <20120918092426.GA5384@localhost> <20568.16682.31115.233591@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> 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: <20568.16682.31115.233591@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: c074cdc6-5c98-4ab1-90d3-7379339a0555 X-Archives-Hash: 218b41065de3d5f314f10938669de3d8 On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:38:50AM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > >>>>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, Brian Harring wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:25:51AM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote: > >> Also, could you please stop spreading FUD with your examples? > > > It's not FUD; it's rendered deps, and a demonstration of how they > > collapse down naturally on their own regardless of how you generate > > them. > > > Quite frankly, it's a fairly effective demonstration in my views, but > > so it goes. > > >> A quick > >> glance shows that what you have expanded there, a fairly reasonable > >> Gentoo dev will solve using: > >> > >> RDEPEND="[common depends]" > >> DEPEND="${RDEPEND} > >> [build only depends]" > > > from diffball (under current EAPIs) > > > """ > > RDEPEND=">=sys-libs/zlib-1.1.4 > > >=app-arch/bzip2-1.0.2 > > app-arch/xz-utils" > > DEPEND="${RDEPEND} > > virtual/pkgconfig" > > """ > > > becomes the following under the proposal: > > > """ > > DEPENDENCIES=">=sys-libs/zlib-1.1.4 > > >=app-arch/bzip2-1.0.2 > > app-arch/xz-utils" > > dep:build? ( virtual/pkgconfig )" > > """ > > Which is longer than the original. ;-) I see 5 lines in the first version, and 4 in the second. I also see either someone who counted wrong, or basing that statement purely on byte count (which is frankly arguing to argue on your part). Either way, pretty sure your view is -1; I'll add it into the glep along mgorny, skipping sniping like the above. ~harring