On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 16:59:48 -0300 Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 20:21:03 +0200 > Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 14:40:25 -0300 > > Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 18:03:51 +0200 > > > Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 12:46:41 -0300 > > > > Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I actually do like the concept but I'm not sure we can reach > > > > > consensus about '*DEPEND vs DEPENDENCIES'; a possibility to > > > > > get people used to it could be to have two parallel EAPIs, > > > > > like 6 and 6-dependencies, where the former will keep the old > > > > > style and the latter use DEPENDENCIES. > > > > > > > > With eclasses supporting both of them? That's more than crazy. > > > > > > depstr=cat/foo > > > > > > case $EAPI in > > > *-dependencies) DEPENDENCIES="build+run: $depstr";; > > > *) DEPEND="$depstr" > > > RDEPEND="$depstr";; > > > esac > > > > Yes, we have many eclasses where this is actually the only expected > > result. Maybe start with python.eclass, that should be quite an > > extreme example. > > > > Reference needed. You probably didn't even think more than 2 seconds > before making this claim about python.eclass, because it is not > particularly hard. Hmm, didn't it used to support having python as DEPEND only? In any case, I'm thinking more of that line. Eclasses which sometimes add RDEP+DEP, sometimes DEP only, and sometimes do even crazier things. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
