On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:51:04 +0200 Michał Górny <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 20:44:33 +0100 > Ciaran McCreesh <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:40:51 -0700 > > Zac Medico <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 09/18/2012 12:29 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:25:57 -0700 > > > > Zac Medico <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Also, if we change the meaning of RDEPEND in the next EAPI, so > > > >> that it's a hard build-time dep like DEPEND, then > > > >> DEPEND="${RDEPEND} virtual/pkgconfig" can be reduced to > > > >> DEPEND="virtual/pkgconfig". This is what I would like to do for > > > >> the experimental EAPI 5-hdepend which is planned [1]. > > > > > > > > What're we going to do about the zillions of unsolvable cycles > > > > that that would create? (Does Portage detect those and error out > > > > yet?) > > > > > > Yeah, it would be treated just like a DEPEND cycle, which is > > > already detected and treated as a fatal error. As a result, when > > > bumping the EAPI of an ebuild, you may have to migrate some deps > > > from RDEPEND to PDEPEND in order to solve the cycles. > > > > What about the large number of RDEPENDs that are required for a > > package to be usable, but not for it to be installed? > > They will still be RDEPEND, just installed earlier I believe. Except > for those arising conflicts which will have to be moved to PDEP. But > I think Zac said that already.
...but you can't move them to be a PDEPEND, since PDEPENDs aren't guaranteed to be installed when a package is used. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
