From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1QYcdM-00022w-KI for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 11:27:12 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CDFF41C02B; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 11:27:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from a1iwww1.kph.uni-mainz.de (a1iwww1.kph.uni-mainz.de [134.93.134.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6909B1C02B for ; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 11:27:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de (a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de [134.93.134.92]) by a1iwww1.kph.uni-mainz.de (8.14.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id p5KBQuHo017137; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:26:56 +0200 Received: from a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de (8.14.4/8.14.2) with ESMTP id p5KBQu0x025897; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:26:56 +0200 Received: (from ulm@localhost) by a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p5KBQuQA025896; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:26:56 +0200 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Package Manager Specification discussions X-BeenThere: gentoo-pms@gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-pms@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Message-ID: <19967.11904.13769.805714@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:26:56 +0200 To: Ciaran McCreesh Cc: =?iso-8859-2?Q?Micha=B3_G=F3rny?= , gentoo-pms@lists.gentoo.org, Zac Medico Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] Rephrasing *DEPEND In-Reply-To: <20110619223604.2d4f7f17@googlemail.com> References: <20110611093245.5d9d266c@pomiocik.lan> <20110619232102.0690d10e@pomiocik.lan> <20110619223604.2d4f7f17@googlemail.com> X-Mailer: VM 8.1.1 under 23.3.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) From: Ulrich Mueller Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: f10d4920d5d51d8486c66da031221a5e >>>>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2011, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 23:21:02 +0200 Micha=B3 G=F3rny = wrote: >> I added a note about the possible circular RDEPEND issue. > I still don't think we should be specifying "RDEPEND is PDEPEND if > the package manager feels like it". That's something for the package > mangler to provide as a horrible --ignore-dependencies-to-break-cycles > option. It's _not_ saying that RDEPEND is like PDEPEND in some cases. The assertion from your previous message in this thread will always hold: | The intention with the "usable" stuff is this that purely RDEPEND | cycles are resolvable, but any such cycles must be resolved before | any package which has a DEPEND upon anything in the cycle is | resolved. So if you've got this: | | first <-- rdepend --- second <-- depend --- third | --- rdepend --> | | Then (first, second, third) and (second, first, third) are the only | legal orderings. But if either RDEPEND became a DEPEND (and if we're | not dealing with binary packages) then there would be no legal | ordering. This is long-standing Portage behaviour (introduced in 2006 with the patches attached to bug 147766, I believe). The footnote would only clarify that in your example neither "first" nor "second" can rely on their rdepend being available in pkg_*inst. Ulrich