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 B2007138010 for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 20:00:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0C5E721C015; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 19:59:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1618E051E for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 19:58:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.42.113] (staff-wireless.saddleback.edu [209.129.85.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: zmedico) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F157333C5D0 for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 19:58:31 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <5058D266.8030606@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:58:30 -0700 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120901 Thunderbird/15.0 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] GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal References: <20120916135211.GC23030@localhost> <20120918102551.500ff19b@pomiocik.lan> <20120918092426.GA5384@localhost> <20568.16682.31115.233591@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <50584559.2000909@gmail.com> <20568.20091.816189.902403@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <5058CAC5.5080706@gentoo.org> <20120918202909.7b238573@googlemail.com> <5058CE43.6000501@gentoo.org> <20120918204433.52af8bcd@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <20120918204433.52af8bcd@googlemail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 51d2e0b0-d150-40e4-97ae-837f7c775e6e X-Archives-Hash: 8cc4a829f9cfcf9b346e7ee5fcb423f7 On 09/18/2012 12:44 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:40:51 -0700 > Zac Medico wrote: >> On 09/18/2012 12:29 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:25:57 -0700 >>> Zac Medico wrote: >>>> Also, if we change the meaning of RDEPEND in the next EAPI, so that >>>> it's a hard build-time dep like DEPEND, then DEPEND="${RDEPEND} >>>> virtual/pkgconfig" can be reduced to DEPEND="virtual/pkgconfig". >>>> This is what I would like to do for the experimental EAPI >>>> 5-hdepend which is planned [1]. >>> >>> What're we going to do about the zillions of unsolvable cycles that >>> that would create? (Does Portage detect those and error out yet?) >> >> Yeah, it would be treated just like a DEPEND cycle, which is already >> detected and treated as a fatal error. As a result, when bumping the >> EAPI of an ebuild, you may have to migrate some deps from RDEPEND to >> PDEPEND in order to solve the cycles. > > What about the large number of RDEPENDs that are required for a package > to be usable, but not for it to be installed? You will have to migrate those deps from RDEPEND to PDEPEND. -- Thanks, Zac