Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC about another *DEPEND variable

[Alin Nastac <mrness@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1077 bytes --]

Brian Harring wrote:
> BDEPEND was actually a seperate proposal/idea, intention there was to 
> have that be the deps that *must* be CHOST (gcc would be an example); 
> bits that are used to actually build the pkg, not data it consumes in 
> building (headers would be data).
>   
Well, until now I didn't thought at the build compatibility.
My concern was only the runtime compatibility.
> Meanwhile, for this I don't see the point in using a seperate metadata 
> key.  Overload DEPEND and add a marker char that is used to indicate 
> that a particular dependency is 'binding', ie, it is linkage.
>   
Lets suppose we use & as 'binding' dependency marker. What sense would
DEPEND="&net-dialup/ppp" have in a context of an ebuild. It certainly
don't specify the necessity of package rebuild whenever net-dialup/ppp
version is changed.
Unless you save the specific compatibility version of the net-dialup/ppp
used by net-dialup/pptpd for building the package, I don't see how can
it help me.
Judging after /var/db/pkg content, I have no such information.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]