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

[Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1389 bytes --]

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 00:01:21 +0200
Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:37:19 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:34:29 +0200
> > Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:08:43 +0100
> > > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:06:06 +0200
> > > > Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > > > But didn't we already point out that we can't have them in
> > > > > RDEPEND since they introduce conflicts?
> > > > 
> > > > You are missing a basic and important part of how dependency
> > > > resolution works: currently, cycles consisting purely of
> > > > RDEPENDs are ignorable.
> > > 
> > > So, what do we lose? If PDEP comes 'ASAP' officially, I believe
> > > that we actually gain RDEPs which can be actually trusted.
> > 
> > "ASAP" is a weaker guarantee that RDEPENDs currently have --
> > RDEPENDs currently have the weakest guarantee necessary to ensure
> > that they can be trusted. It's also a useless guarantee, since
> > "ASAP" can be arbitrarily late.
> 
> And can't RDEPENDs be arbitrarily late if there is a cycle?

No. RDEPENDs have to be available when a package is used to satisfy a
dependency. That's the difference between an RDEPEND and a PDEPEND.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]