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 1QVp0b-0008VR-Tb for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 12 Jun 2011 18:03:38 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E14351C086; Sun, 12 Jun 2011 18:03:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A995C1C037 for ; Sun, 12 Jun 2011 18:03:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.26.4] (ip98-164-193-252.oc.oc.cox.net [98.164.193.252]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: zmedico) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7765B1BC007; Sun, 12 Jun 2011 18:03:23 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4DF4FF65.90702@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 11:03:17 -0700 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110528 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.10 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 To: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= CC: gentoo-pms@lists.gentoo.org, Ulrich Mueller , Ciaran McCreesh Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] Rephrasing *DEPEND References: <20110611093245.5d9d266c@pomiocik.lan> <20110611125341.185e19d9@googlemail.com> <20110612095246.0cbb1d7b@pomiocik.lan> <19956.30321.618030.779038@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <4DF4833F.7000401@gentoo.org> <20110612151608.06ada65d@pomiocik.lan> In-Reply-To: <20110612151608.06ada65d@pomiocik.lan> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 77c5fe36f728bb71852f4d39fb3aeebc On 06/12/2011 06:16 AM, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 02:13:35 -0700 > Zac Medico wrote: >=20 >> On 06/12/2011 01:18 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2011, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: >>> >>>> True. How about pkg_setup()? Shall we assume RDEPEND are there or >>>> rely on @system only? >>> >>> IIUC, with Portage's breaking of dependency cycles there's no >>> absolute guarantee that packages in RDEPEND will be available in >>> pkg_*. >> >> It would be more accurate to say that it's guaranteed except for cases >> in which circular dependencies make it impossible to guarantee. >=20 > This or other words, this makes this an unreliable feature. So, right > now, users can't assume anything specific about dependencies being > installed in pkg_*? In practice it's very reliable, although the specific behavior varies depending on whether or not there are circular dependencies. So, it would probably make sense to specify it like this: (A) If there are no circular RDEPEND dependencies, then RDEPEND is guaranteed to be satisfied. (B) If there are circular RDEPEND dependencies, then RDEPEND is not guaranteed to be satisfied. > Doesn't this make it actually impossible to call > the installed application in pkg_postinst()? Only when case (B) applies. It may be possible to improve a situation like this by making the circular dependency PDEPEND in one direction and RDEPEND in the other: first RDEPENDs on second second PDEPENDs on first This make it possible to guarantee case (A) for the first package, while there is no such guarantee for the second package. --=20 Thanks, Zac