On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 22:36:04 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 23:21:02 +0200 > Michał Górny wrote: > > And the third version. > > > > I added a note about the possible circular RDEPEND issue. I wanted > > to do that through a footnote but wasn't able to get it working so > > it's a standard bracket now). > > 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. We either have to mention that or assume the long-outstanding portage behavior is not PMS compliant. And even if we choose the latter option, I think we should have a footnote warning about that there. > Also, isn't pkg_setup the same as pkg_preinst, availability-wise? IMO not necessarily. During later pkg_* phases, RDEPEND needs to be satisfied in order to make it possible to call the installed program. I don't really see a reason to make similar assumptions in pkg_setup, and I'd really like to avoid saying 'RDEPEND is for program's runtime dependencies and pkg_setup dependencies'. -- Best regards, Michał Górny