Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH 3/5] xdg.eclass: move deps to RDEPEND

[Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org>]

On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 10:14 PM Marty E. Plummer <hanetzer@startmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 10:08:03AM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 9:17 AM James Le Cuirot <chewi@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 09:00:38 -0400
> > > Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > The reason why it is in DEPEND though is that none of these tools
> > > > > are required at runtime. They are needed at postinst and postrm
> > > > > stages which afaik makes them DEPEND on EAPI previous to EAPI 7 and
> > > > > BDEPEND in EAPI 7 if I'm not mistaken.
> > > >
> > > > This is incorrect; programs executed in pkg_postinst/pkg_postrm should
> > > > be present in RDEPEND. Consider a binpkg installation, which would
> > > > ignore DEPEND, but would still execute pkg_postinst.
> > > >
> > > > Another option: since xdg-utils.eclass functions will politely skip
> > > > the updates if the tools are missing, we could just drop the
> > > > dependency from xdg.eclass entirely and wait for the tools to get
> > > > installed through some indirect means.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately there is no correct answer here as we didn't consider
> > > this scenario when planning EAPI 7. We should have looked at Exherbo,
> > > which does make this important distinction. There is a bug report open.
> > >
> > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/660306
> > >
> > > What I will say is that we should not attempt to executing anything
> > > from within ROOT or SYSROOT unless it known to be interpreted
> > > (e.g. a shell script) and there is no feasible alternative. I add that
> > > exclusion clause because I have been forced to do this with
> > > python-config.
> >
> > That's a good point; both update-desktop-database and
> > update-mime-database are compiled binaries, and should probably be
> > executed from BROOT (/) instead. I'll revise my patchset.
> >
> Not to steal the show/etc, but I do have a patchset which does most of
> this already across {gnome2,xdg}{,-utils}.eclass, though I'm as
> conflicted as you guys are with regards to the DEPEND/PDEPEND/BDEPEND/RDPEND
> for it as well.
> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/e0167edbb7b48b03dc90bfbb250ae16d

Here is what I would propose regarding deps here:

1. Add the deps to PDEPEND, to cover the eclass usage. Using PDEPEND
will eventually allow us to drop the special-case for dev-libs/glib.

2. Leave DEPEND as-is until we can do some validation and/or a
tinderbox run to figure out what needs to be updated before removing
it.