From: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org>
To: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@gentoo.org>
Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org, pms-bugs@gentoo.org, dev-portage@gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The meaning of || ( a:= b:= ) dependencies
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 09:53:37 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <21471.15361.590900.790004@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140804092642.77ebc2df@pomiot.lan>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1948 bytes --]
>>>>> On Mon, 4 Aug 2014, Michał Górny wrote:
> Reasonable. However, as I see it, we'll end up having up to four
> different operators:
> - || that is deprecated yet everyone will still use it (like they don't
> use :* right now),
> - ||* that will be used scarcely,
> - <<= that would be the preferred variant for compile-time switches yet
> many people will not use it because it has different characters than
> '||' [we could try maybe '||<' so that people will still see it as
> replacement for '||'],
> - ||= that most people would use forgetting about '<<=' [or '||<'].
No, we will have only two distinct operators, namely ||* and ||=.
Alternatively, or in addition, || could be kept but would be identical
to ||*.
> So, banning '|| ( A:= B:= )' in a future EAPI sounds reasonable.
What prevents us from banning it now, by adding a repoman check?
The || ( A:= B:= ) construct would mean that you can switch from
provider A to provider B and back to A. Nothing would prevent you from
choosing a different slot in the second step, which renders the :=
operator meaningless.
> However, there's still the matter of setting current Portage behavior
> because I don't we should keep the non-predictable magic.
> What should be the current behavior then? Should we assume that all
> '||' are not well-defined and need to be compile-switchable? Or try to
> invent heuristic like I suggested?
The devmanual [1] is very clear about it. || ( ) is only allowed if
the implementation can be switched at runtime:
# * fnord is merged on a system which has foo and not bar installed.
# foo is then unmerged, and bar is installed. fnord must continue to
# work correctly.
# * A binary package of fnord made on a system with foo and not bar
# can be taken and installed on a system with bar and not foo.
Ulrich
[1] http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/dependencies/index.html
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-08-04 7:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-08-03 22:44 [gentoo-dev] The meaning of || ( a:= b:= ) dependencies Michał Górny
2014-08-04 0:41 ` Ian Stakenvicius
2014-08-04 7:19 ` Michał Górny
2014-08-04 6:06 ` [gentoo-dev] " Ulrich Mueller
2014-08-04 7:26 ` Michał Górny
2014-08-04 7:53 ` Ulrich Mueller [this message]
[not found] ` <7cbf12bc6e5646adb74392b7b7e192a1@mail10.futurewins.com>
2014-08-04 9:55 ` Rich Freeman
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=21471.15361.590900.790004@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de \
--to=ulm@gentoo.org \
--cc=dev-portage@gentoo.org \
--cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
--cc=mgorny@gentoo.org \
--cc=pms-bugs@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