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 0AB61138010 for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 17:19:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5CE4421C016; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 17:19:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bk0-f53.google.com (mail-bk0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 146EB21C011; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 17:18:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bkwj4 with SMTP id j4so45232bkw.40 for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:18:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=AJ2QGg25ZdyJZm0kPky+HL189hOHsc0ymQYquI6uZH8=; b=c9axOMDJ3E0AYjvXclM3U0cwM51sI3iz8ylasTZitZFdEoJbxwPybk7TeJhFo4ZNyx Y+LP7evFRXz10d7WHHJZEFgPkzlqxmHpClniR1+vW5mGMpnUd0/4fEtW1W9dJhdMAdND 0AD1hPKjaKKC8s5my5mRFuunZpSVNWnE3RdXTjvUcJlrEWtYO1weNjfnUGHKgmc8UufE 03JSrExnMx+3LSeQOae6JUmFXnwRyYEu05Qj5l3z7cu/snaIEjqup4Q9TvmQy2LgVY99 XjXyzU6IjTVEmKbRCQoNw45JzhqS+/JDlAUj3JTI0SMKH9NBBayS/BYW20DGBdmpPTuw 3/DQ== 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 Received: by 10.204.145.85 with SMTP id c21mr356807bkv.46.1347988709051; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:18:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.112.211 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:18:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1347988034.22063.5.camel@localhost> References: <20120916135211.GC23030@localhost> <20120918102551.500ff19b@pomiocik.lan> <20120918092426.GA5384@localhost> <20120918114742.7e87a411@pomiocik.lan> <1347988034.22063.5.camel@localhost> Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 13:18:28 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal From: Michael Mol To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: gentoo-pms@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: cb34eedc-390a-4115-8a88-a8b836e41d89 X-Archives-Hash: 0120a7e1e88e74d1d5607a2bb3792fec On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Hans de Graaff wrote: > On Tue, 2012-09-18 at 11:47 +0200, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > >> Yes, and sometimes we're doing 'use test'. I simply don't see how >> adding a separate group of dependencies just for 'test' phase is going >> to help us. They fit just fine into build-time dependencies right now. > > It would enable us to consider making tests on some packages optional to > break circular dependencies with FEATURES=3Dtest, i.e. only run the tests > if the test dependencies can be installed without circular dependencies. > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D175808 Thought: That might also allow you to split an emerge into two separate jobs. I.e. "it's inconvenient, difficult or impossible to have test dependencies installed at build time, but we could circle back and run the tests in a test-only entry somewhere later in the job queue, if the package build setup can support it." --=20 :wq