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

["Michał Górny" <mgorny@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2356 bytes --]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:53:55 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:51:04 +0200
> Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 20:44:33 +0100
> > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:40:51 -0700
> > > Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > > On 09/18/2012 12:29 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:25:57 -0700
> > > > > Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > > >> Also, if we change the meaning of RDEPEND in the next EAPI,
> > > > >> so that it's a hard build-time dep like DEPEND, then
> > > > >> DEPEND="${RDEPEND} virtual/pkgconfig" can be reduced to
> > > > >> DEPEND="virtual/pkgconfig". This is what I would like to do
> > > > >> for the experimental EAPI 5-hdepend which is planned [1].
> > > > > 
> > > > > What're we going to do about the zillions of unsolvable cycles
> > > > > that that would create? (Does Portage detect those and error
> > > > > out yet?)
> > > > 
> > > > Yeah, it would be treated just like a DEPEND cycle, which is
> > > > already detected and treated as a fatal error. As a result, when
> > > > bumping the EAPI of an ebuild, you may have to migrate some deps
> > > > from RDEPEND to PDEPEND in order to solve the cycles.
> > > 
> > > What about the large number of RDEPENDs that are required for a
> > > package to be usable, but not for it to be installed?
> > 
> > They will still be RDEPEND, just installed earlier I believe. Except
> > for those arising conflicts which will have to be moved to PDEP. But
> > I think Zac said that already.
> 
> ...but you can't move them to be a PDEPEND, since PDEPENDs aren't
> guaranteed to be installed when a package is used.

But didn't we already point out that we can't have them in RDEPEND
since they introduce conflicts?

Unless you're talking about that group of dependencies which doesn't
introduce conflicts in RDEPEND now but will introduce them after
the change. We should probably do some kind of tree-wide study on how
large the problem is.

A simple solution would be to mandate installing PDEPs as soon
as possible. In case of those dependencies, that would mean installing
them like RDEPENDs are installed now, wouldn't it?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]