From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-55252-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 196A9138010
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; 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 <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 20:40:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by pbcwz12 with SMTP id wz12so10521842pbc.40
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; 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 <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
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: <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: <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
> > <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