From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 196A9138010 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 20:41:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8799821C004; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 20:41:34 +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 09D5BE0212 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 20:40:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pbcwz12 with SMTP id wz12so10521842pbc.40 for ; Tue, 02 Oct 2012 13:40:46 -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=QPmniYCNEVzaYpcFsXUNDbNH/78/2QzYlgQ6t6gO1fo=; b=FUg/R3C2XeX9DsW/u/vkho0mhBjZvmrLJSJE5GbQU0I3nTva5aWQzzRkRmCg6iGfbS FckqCiaEEG9g3kBSh5KRdojCkit7UwsTdHFU1Hrrx6KoRB0nWwSGBN5fzpWUlwJ4aUWv yGZDCFQjHOy1InDpsWSeqYMYvsKw0uxz3eOLXurWa6ovMKOZLu0KPs9kM656Sh7umACF mcclztsmU+jjMK8AgrATSP1DGF/fu87Or1hSpxqp+FW0vePGcEUxa9jmOrthGuJTRWpN QI2wtKBHX3XmPwaIDPRUUdQHM1SHLBil1JDM1/fGDMz/xKi1Z1Je1WGFtBbN4DcvNzZN 2Nrg== Received: by 10.68.220.2 with SMTP id ps2mr7311734pbc.61.1349210446220; Tue, 02 Oct 2012 13:40:46 -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 y2sm1223079pax.29.2012.10.02.13.40.43 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 02 Oct 2012 13:40:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtp.gmail.com:587 (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 02 Oct 2012 13:40:45 -0700 Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 13:40:45 -0700 From: Brian Harring To: Ian Stakenvicius Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-pms] GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal Message-ID: <20121002204045.GC9562@localhost> References: <20120916175921.4f01661a@googlemail.com> <20120925224614.GF26094@localhost> <20120929170509.63efef70@googlemail.com> <20120930201453.GC2180@localhost> <20120930213018.22fe16f3@googlemail.com> <20120930214214.GE2180@localhost> <20120930225340.126b1027@googlemail.com> <506B2985.2040108@gentoo.org> <20121002185614.63783db0@googlemail.com> <506B2D82.9030008@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail 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: <506B2D82.9030008@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: d247c2a5-7b07-4d42-bcd8-e1fba3cdea70 X-Archives-Hash: c77cfa8bba4bd18f1eab97b09fbe1549 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 > > wrote: > >> On 30/09/12 05:53 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > >>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 14:42:14 -0700 Brian Harring > >>> 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