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 32A05138010 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 04:01:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id ACA65E030B; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 04:01:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vb0-f53.google.com (mail-vb0-f53.google.com [209.85.212.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CCC1E01DC for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 04:00:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vbbfc21 with SMTP id fc21so7593040vbb.40 for ; Tue, 02 Oct 2012 21:00:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=SCWfcjbazSgiO5TRzxhRDGUspCK1a/mLCeeQOyK8QDg=; b=xwqtXXAeVLjn/zphsfisbWlgS0+lnqgLQ5rAjMzwDEYLZUXphRU1GTVv2ae/rpMvkp TIsLRxW813Cu7Gsl/5vDZrVGE746hHtMX9GBf/c8XPG4YUm4KynLbeOrnACAh1RckYvM ujAA8dnuL9S8Jb4Y+xSHX3KPC/tEckPb2J9jETomI7V/dZmT9xAZUtQaZtADC3Eo3Mzb GSvhZn29fqB3I6GzxsY9l5/f2VWh8gQQSgoFtyQ/oEcP0/gT7pmKmKNiD0lBM9OmId6y tAP9+vS5EDdaUq18SejhXmEOdi6behHEUUQKmX9VDF3U3qcGBpg6vnqDFNz7F4pQZXCB Mbuw== 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 10.52.34.40 with SMTP id w8mr398307vdi.9.1349236839772; Tue, 02 Oct 2012 21:00:39 -0700 (PDT) Sender: yngwin@gmail.com Received: by 10.58.58.110 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 21:00:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <506B28AB.4050301@gentoo.org> References: <20120915203318.GH28593@localhost> <20120916000336.37f516f6@pomiocik.lan> <20120916012026.GI28593@localhost> <20120916131501.GA23030@localhost> <5059C405.9070704@orlitzky.com> <5059C592.6070507@gentoo.org> <20120930221518.GG2180@localhost> <506B28AB.4050301@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 12:00:39 +0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: _uDedq7xiolZ8VT-okqZVRP6V1k Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: example conversion of gentoo-x86 current deps to unified dependencies From: Ben de Groot To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: ba97776b-ba5d-43f3-b9ae-4bbbbf1a2a85 X-Archives-Hash: 098973949e30d25fb0cfb436ceaba1e8 > On 30/09/12 06:15 PM, Brian Harring wrote: > >>>>> yngwin has a point that I've not seen addressed. >>>>> >>>>> What /is/ wrong with the whole CDEPEND intermediate var idea? >>>>> >>>> >>>> The problem appears as we introduce more DEPEND variables >>>> (which is what prompted the proposal, IIRC). If we have >>>> ADEPEND, BDEPEND, CDEPEND, and DDEPEND, and there's only some >>>> (i.e. not total) sharing going on then the COMMON_DEPEND >>>> pattern starts to fall apart. You potentially need, >>>> >>>> AB_DEPEND AC_DEPEND AD_DEPEND BC_DEPEND BD_DEPEND CD_DEPEND >>>> ABC_DEPEND ABD_DEPEND ACD_DEPEND BCD_DEPEND ABCD_DEPEND >>>> (COMMON_DEPEND) >>>> >>>> This obviously gets worse as more DEPEND vars are introduced. >>>> >>> >>> Well not really, no -- the additional *DEPENDs that are being >>> proposed (or at least mentioned) for new EAPI will either remove >>> atoms from COMMON_DEPEND/DEPEND/RDEPEND or will be used so >>> tersely that a COMMON_DEPEND or other intermediate variable won't >>> really be necessary for them. Another thing I wanted to point out is that those "potential" extra variables are not needed in practice. We already have 98% of the tree (if I got the previously mentioned stats right) that does fine with just one or two ({R,}DEPEND). The majority of that other 2% needs just one more variable. There may be corner cases where more vars would be needed, but those will never be more than a few ebuilds. It's just not worth it to completely change the way we do things (or use two systems in parallel) just for a few ebuilds that would significantly benefit. If we were a new distro and designing our ebuild format from scratch, then yes, I would say your proposal has merit. But we aren't. We have hundreds of people and tens of thousands of ebuilds using *DEPEND just fine. There are no big problems, only corner-cases. We're not talking about incremental improvements either (such as was the case e.g. with use deps). Let's just keep things simple, and refrain from "fixing" what isn't broken. -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin