On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 18:55:10 -0400 Michael Orlitzky <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 09/07/2012 07:45 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > Since DEPENDENCIES hasn't been written up in a Gentoo-friendly > > manner, and since the Exherbo documentation doesn't seem to suffice > > to explain the idea here, here's some more details on the > > DEPENDENCIES proposal. > > > > It seems to me that the problem this solves is just one of ontology. > It's analogous to trying to stick files named "foo", "bar", "baz", > etc. into directories named "depend", "rdepend", "hdepend", and so on. > > There are a few well-known ways to organize things in a hierarchy, and > which one is most efficient depends on the categories and objects that > you have. Given the way that most software is built (see: > COMMON_DEPEND), I think DEPENDENCIES would work better than what we're > doing now, but it also seems more complex. > > I think that dependencies are ultimately not hierarchical, and this > can force duplication in DEPENDENCIES as well. Has anyone considered > tagging the package atoms with a list of dependency types? For > example, > > * foo/bar: ( build run host ) > * baz/one: baz? ( build ) > * baz/two, baz/three: baz? ( build run ) > ... > > This would eliminate duplication of the objects (package atoms) in > favor of duplication of the categories (dependency types). Since the > package atoms are what we really care about, I think the tradeoff is > beneficial. Maintainers get to express each dependency exactly once. This is nowhere near friendly to a developer... -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
