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 B59BF138010 for ; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 11:50:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 14A6821C002; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 11:50:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vc0-f181.google.com (mail-vc0-f181.google.com [209.85.220.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D8E6E0656; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 11:49:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vchn11 with SMTP id n11so5158492vch.40 for ; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 04:49:12 -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:cc:content-type; bh=LMx1MRalL8ymj5o2bgX8so15VClZL8CLP+8/e2IzGF0=; b=knz4FoOvD7X7PmngvZjeApX5jqFyZwlk34WZe+uHU2iSJqTx83uGfrqw7o5gxwo0WB Qw+R37W27tc4OVF2YNQPoqPGjCRvHsto/JDhjmXEBmd7sSZ/gQ8TlRCzYyEDfVWVa0Vl ffMhlflwpVr4pPYJvG7FFO50wi33T6ReID2WOGHJ8PkQAFltq6f3ViA01MdazVaTtUNE G21eZkF0Lygoqhx5KyhZu2B81ZDm9RYKoJmqNq9WBtLUuZqenUVgPAyr+hYOEDHXtI+z 9mq9PozTux4Os7DtS2pFW8JgDPgAwq83MuGU+7A8EBQSKo5ZDiJpjujOidsKO1noVWF9 Zs8g== 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 10.220.152.134 with SMTP id g6mr7202607vcw.10.1347882552350; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 04:49:12 -0700 (PDT) Sender: yngwin@gmail.com Received: by 10.58.58.110 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 04:49:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20120916135211.GC23030@localhost> <20120917030821.GA15027@localhost> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 19:49:12 +0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 8rXCGr-jZW-IWi95hDpfT_kQ-aQ Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal From: Ben de Groot To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: gentoo-pms@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 4583e9c4-4503-478e-b3eb-2cd6fcd03547 X-Archives-Hash: 2597d93a0f522b69a9fa0bc0dc423405 On 17 September 2012 18:55, Alex Alexander wrote: > On Sep 17, 2012 6:13 AM, "Brian Harring" wrote: >> >> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 07:32:39PM +0300, Alex Alexander wrote: >> > On Sep 16, 2012 4:55 PM, "Brian Harring" <[1]ferringb@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > Folks- >> > > >> > > Keeping it short and quick, a basic glep has been written for what >> > I'm >> > > proposing for DEPENDENCIES enhancement. >> > > >> > > The live version of the doc is available at >> > > >> > >> > [2]http://dev.gentoo.org/~ferringb/unified-dependencies/extensible_depe >> > ndencies.html >> > >> > Am I the only one who thinks that this dep:{build,...} thing looks >> > really ugly and is hard to read? >> > >> > IMO simply removing the "dep" part would greatly improve things: >> >> That 'dep' part isn't great, but it's added for a reason; to unify >> with USE_EXPAND/use group intended syntax. There's a reference in >> there to >> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/260069#260069 which >> I'll formalize soon enough. >> >> >> > DEPENDENCIES=" >> > :build,run? ( ... ) >> > :run? ( ... ) >> > " >> >> For your suggestion, consider it if we *do* fxi USE expand- via using >> the same : form. >> >> Using app-admin/mcollective ad an example, it's deps are thus: >> >> DEPEND="ruby_targets_ruby18? ( dev-lang/ruby:1.8 ) >> ruby_targets_ree18? ( dev-lang/ruby-enterprise:1.8 )" >> RDEPEND="dev-ruby/stomp >> ruby_targets_ruby18? ( dev-lang/ruby:1.8 ) >> ruby_targets_ree18? ( dev-lang/ruby-enterprise:1.8 )" >> >> Which, if USE_EXPAND targets were groupped, would go from this >> ruby_targets_ruby18? ( dev-lang/ruby:1.8 ) >> ruby_targets_ree18? ( dev-lang/ruby-enterprise:1.8 ) >> dep:run? ( dev-ruby/stomp )" >> >> to this: >> ruby:targets_ruby18? ( dev-lang/ruby:1.8 ) >> ruby:targets_ree18? ( dev-lang/ruby-enterprise:1.8 ) >> :run? ( dev-ruby/stomp ) > > Ok, now I get it. I've read the other threads as well, but failed to put it > all together. Happens when you barely sleep every night :-) > > I don't like this mix of dependency types and use flag deps. It smells > trouble. Dependency types should be easy to separate and read, but the above > example is a mess, "dep:" or no "dep:". > > Why? Because you have to scan the whole thing to sort out which lines are > dependency types and which lines are use deps and even then it would be easy > to misread something. > > If we want to stay away from labels (which aren't that bad IMO), I'd > recommend the following instead: > > Force explicit setting of the dependency type and disallow the mix of > dependency types and use flag deps at the same level / block. > > DEPENDENCIES=" > :build,run? ( lib/foo ) > :run? ( > lib/bar > someuseflag? ( random/app ) > ) > :*? ( > thing? ( > :build? ( lib/thing ) > :run? ( lib/thingrunner ) > ) > " > > Or, using your example: > > :build,run? ( > > > ruby:targets_ruby18? ( dev-lang/ruby:1.8 ) > ruby:targets_ree18? ( dev-lang/ruby-enterprise:1.8 ) > ) > :run? ( dev-ruby/stomp ) > > Alex | wired Or, even easier and more straightforward: just keep using *DEPEND. The case hasn't been made yet why we need to change that in the first place. -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin