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 C6C80138010 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 18:02:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 330A521C086; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 18:00:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 426EDE04ED for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 17:57:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.145] (CPE002401f30b73-CM001cea3ddad8.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.240.69.152]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: axs) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9A54833D383 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 17:57:57 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <504A35A8.704@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 13:58:00 -0400 From: Ian Stakenvicius User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.6esrpre) Gecko/20120731 Thunderbird/10.0.6 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Unified DEPENDENCIES concept References: <20120907124559.68a1b88d@googlemail.com> <20120907124641.0135693d@gentoo.org> <20120907171059.525eea36@googlemail.com> <504A269A.6000006@gentoo.org> <20120907175802.5a3948a8@googlemail.com> <504A28A8.8020805@gentoo.org> <504A319E.9070803@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <504A319E.9070803@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 374571ab-89dd-4f90-b1c5-51ebfe8c2385 X-Archives-Hash: 870500dc223ae49e81733eb5e0b667b4 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 07/09/12 01:40 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > On 09/07/2012 10:02 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> On 07/09/12 12:58 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >>> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 09:53:46 -0700 Zac Medico >>> wrote: >>>> If you're insinuating that Portage may not have a >>>> "fully-ROOT-and-/-aware resolver", then I can assure you >>>> that this is not a problem. >> >>> In that case, why do we need HDEPEND at all? >> >> >> We don't, actually; HDEPEND is essentially DEPEND. what we need >> is TDEPEND. > > We could do either one (or do both, and get rid of DEPEND). In > discussions on the chromium-os-dev list [1] (people who could have > been using HDEPEND for years now), the dominant preference was to > use HDEPEND since they felt that it would require the least amount > of adjustment to existing DEPEND settings. > > [1] > https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/chromium-os-dev/yVAcpfZHrOE Thanks > for clarifying this; after reading through the bug I wasn't sure if the recommendation was to add HDEPEND only or to deprecate DEPEND entirely for HDEPEND/TDEPEND. Just to clarify the work involved in converting to this; since DEPEND on EAPI<=4 is essentially HDEPEND , wouldn't migration to the new EAPI (with HDEPEND/DEPEND) generally mean that we would need to s/DEPEND/HDEPEND/ for the vast majority of ebuilds (ie all the trivial ones)? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlBKNagACgkQ2ugaI38ACPD7fAD+ItO84yPGTtG5G9aY0nJvTheA QP4CRV8euHOUeCt1CGsBAK0DbpLXnARHd6lHYCAnuihezRRYr8rO8xw7kIKmlx/U =DkxI -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----