From: Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com>
To: Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org>
Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-pms] GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 13:40:45 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121002204045.GC9562@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <506B2D82.9030008@gentoo.org>
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 02:08:02PM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 02/10/12 01:56 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 13:51:01 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
> > <axs@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >> On 30/09/12 05:53 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 14:42:14 -0700 Brian Harring
> >>> <ferringb@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> The second is that it starts the conceptual shift from
> >>>>> "cat/pkg is a build dep, and cat/pkg is a run dep" to
> >>>>> "cat/pkg is a dep that is required for build and run".
> >>>>
> >>>> Fairly weak argument at best; you're claiming that via
> >>>> labels, "contextually they know it's these deps" in
> >>>> comparison to via dep:build "contextually they know it's
> >>>> exposed only in build".
> >>>>
> >>>> Same difference.
> >>>
> >>> It's rather a big deal now that we have := dependencies.
> >>>
> >
> >> So you would using your labels syntax, specify an atom with a :=
> >> dep using certain labels and the same atom without ':=' on other
> >> labels? I don't quite follow what you're getting at here as to
> >> how this is a big deal..
> >
> > A := only makes sense for a dependency that is present both at
> > build time and at runtime. Currently, the only place you should be
> > seeing a := is on a spec that is listed in both DEPEND and
> > RDEPEND.
> >
> > Conceptually, the := applies to "the spec that is in both DEPEND
> > and RDEPEND". But with the current syntax, there's no such thing as
> > "the spec that is in both". There are two specs, which happen to
> > be identical as strings, one in DEPEND and one in RDEPEND, and
> > there's no way for the two to be associated.
> >
>
> Current syntax = *DEPEND, yes. Completely agree.
>
> In relation to Brian's proposal for DEPENDENCIES, tho, the two specs
> which happen to be identical strings would be rolled out from the same
> - -actual- string in the ebuild, and so, I don't see any such 'big deal'
> between the ability to conceptually express what's going on via his
> syntax and your labels.
>
> Unless i'm missing something, 'same difference' still fits..
Same difference applies; he's making the claim that the resolver can't
tell that the python atom should be the same between build/run:
dep:build,run? ( dev-lang/python:2.7= )
build: dev-python/snakeoil
# vs labels
build+run: dev-lang/python:2.7=
build: dev-python/snakeoil
The argument there is basically predicated on the belief that only
labels can 'color' the sections it contains. This is a bullshit
claim, and possibly specific to paludis internal failings.
A sane implementation can walk that parse tree, and minimally infer
that on it's own via the walk- or if it's saner, just track where
things came from, and sort it via that way. Realistically a *good*
implementation would likely be doing a partial rendering anyways (a
good implementation already has the machinery for this for QA analysis
reasons)- meaning conditionals beyond dep: would be finalized, leaving
just those nodes unrendered, and then doing quick pass rendering of
that intermediate form to get each phases specific requirements.
Honestly it's a bullshit argument anyways; the unstated, but core
argument of such nonsense is that the resolver if it saw
dep:build? ( dev-lang/python:2.7= )
dep:run? ( dev-lang/python:2.7= )
would, because it's not one single build/run construct, think it can
vary python:2.7 Any/all sane resolver already do collapsing and
stabilization of common nodes across dep phases (and if paludis
doesn't, well, that's their mess to sort; we're not getting any
PROPERTIES=funky-slots hacks to work around their brain dead
breakage here).
The same situation can occur w/ labels via eclass dep manipulation;
this is an artificial example, but anyone who has done deps know this
sort of thing can/does occur via eclasses injecting common deps in:
encode? ( build: dev-lang/python:2.7= )
build,run: dev-lang/python:2.7=
Oh noes. How ever will the resolver know that it shouldn't vary the
micro version of dev-lang/python:2.7 between build and run in that
case! You just *know* it wants to vary the micro version because,
such a completely fucking worthless thing for the resolver, it must do
because it can, right?
Etc. It's a pure bullshit argument, potentially derived from
implementation issues for his own code, or just academic wankery;
unsure of which, don't care which since the core argument is a
new level of cracked out.
~harring
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-02 20:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 94+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-09-16 13:52 [gentoo-dev] GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal Brian Harring
2012-09-16 14:39 ` [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-pms] " Ciaran McCreesh
2012-09-16 16:05 ` Brian Harring
2012-09-16 16:59 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2012-09-25 22:46 ` Brian Harring
2012-09-29 16:05 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2012-09-30 20:14 ` Brian Harring
2012-09-30 20:30 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2012-09-30 21:42 ` Brian Harring
2012-09-30 21:53 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2012-09-30 23:56 ` Brian Harring
2012-10-01 7:13 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2012-10-01 9:01 ` Brian Harring
2012-10-01 9:15 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2012-10-17 15:03 ` [gentoo-dev] " Steven J. Long
2012-10-02 17:51 ` [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-pms] " Ian Stakenvicius
2012-10-02 17:56 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2012-10-02 18:08 ` Ian Stakenvicius
2012-10-02 18:16 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2012-10-02 20:40 ` Brian Harring [this message]
2012-10-02 20:46 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2012-10-14 16:45 ` [gentoo-dev] " Steven J. Long
2012-10-14 16:38 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2012-10-17 13:52 ` [gentoo-dev] " Steven J. Long
2012-09-18 13:27 ` [gentoo-dev] " Ian Stakenvicius
2012-09-16 16:32 ` [gentoo-dev] " Alex Alexander
2012-09-16 16:44 ` Ulrich Mueller
2012-09-17 3:08 ` Brian Harring
2012-09-17 5:31 ` Peter Stuge
2012-09-17 10:55 ` Alex Alexander
2012-09-17 11:49 ` Ben de Groot
2012-09-17 12:41 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2012-09-17 13:48 ` Ben de Groot
2012-09-17 13:58 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2012-09-17 14:11 ` Ben de Groot
2012-09-17 14:14 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2012-09-17 14:51 ` Ben de Groot
2012-09-17 14:22 ` Michael Mol
2012-09-18 12:25 ` Ian Stakenvicius
2012-09-17 5:56 ` Brian Dolbec
2012-09-18 4:04 ` Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
2012-09-18 9:58 ` Brian Harring
2012-09-18 6:48 ` hasufell
2012-09-18 9:41 ` Brian Harring
2012-09-18 8:25 ` Michał Górny
2012-09-18 9:24 ` Brian Harring
2012-09-18 9:38 ` Ulrich Mueller
2012-09-18 9:56 ` vivo75
2012-09-18 10:35 ` Ulrich Mueller
2012-09-18 19:25 ` Zac Medico
2012-09-18 19:29 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2012-09-18 19:40 ` Zac Medico
2012-09-18 19:44 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2012-09-18 19:58 ` Zac Medico
2012-09-18 20:10 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2012-09-18 20:21 ` Zac Medico
2012-09-18 20:51 ` Michał Górny
2012-09-18 20:53 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2012-09-18 21:06 ` Michał Górny
2012-09-18 21:08 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2012-09-18 21:34 ` Michał Górny
2012-09-18 21:37 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2012-09-18 22:01 ` Michał Górny
2012-09-18 22:06 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2012-09-18 22:53 ` Michał Górny
2012-09-18 23:28 ` Brian Harring
2012-09-19 10:48 ` Michał Górny
2012-09-19 11:36 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2012-09-18 11:06 ` Brian Harring
2012-09-18 12:11 ` Ulrich Mueller
2012-09-18 19:18 ` Alec Warner
2012-09-18 20:06 ` Michał Górny
2012-09-18 20:11 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2012-09-18 20:22 ` Michał Górny
2012-09-18 20:27 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2012-09-18 20:40 ` Michał Górny
2012-09-19 4:09 ` Ben de Groot
2012-09-18 20:39 ` Ian Stakenvicius
2012-09-19 4:07 ` Ben de Groot
2012-09-19 6:01 ` Matt Turner
2012-09-19 6:36 ` Ulrich Mueller
2012-09-19 6:55 ` Matt Turner
2012-09-19 7:12 ` Ben de Groot
2012-09-19 14:19 ` Jeroen Roovers
2012-09-19 16:11 ` Matt Turner
2012-09-18 9:47 ` Michał Górny
2012-09-18 10:45 ` [gentoo-dev] GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposas Brian Harring
2012-09-18 17:07 ` [gentoo-dev] GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal Hans de Graaff
2012-09-18 17:18 ` Michael Mol
2012-09-18 17:21 ` "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
2012-09-18 20:37 ` [gentoo-dev] " Ryan Hill
2012-09-26 6:58 ` [gentoo-dev] " Michał Górny
2012-09-26 10:33 ` Brian Harring
2012-09-28 12:17 ` Brian Harring
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20121002204045.GC9562@localhost \
--to=ferringb@gmail.com \
--cc=axs@gentoo.org \
--cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox