-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 14:08:02 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > A := only makes sense for a dependency that is present both at > > build time and at runtime. Currently, the only place you should be > > seeing a := is on a spec that is listed in both DEPEND and > > RDEPEND. > > > > Conceptually, the := applies to "the spec that is in both DEPEND > > and RDEPEND". But with the current syntax, there's no such thing as > > "the spec that is in both". There are two specs, which happen to > > be identical as strings, one in DEPEND and one in RDEPEND, and > > there's no way for the two to be associated. > > > > Current syntax = *DEPEND, yes. Completely agree. > > In relation to Brian's proposal for DEPENDENCIES, tho, the two specs > which happen to be identical strings would be rolled out from the same > - -actual- string in the ebuild, and so, I don't see any such 'big > deal' between the ability to conceptually express what's going on via > his syntax and your labels. > > Unless i'm missing something, 'same difference' still fits..
Brian has DEPENDENCIES as being syntactic sugar that is "rendered" into separate *DEPEND variables. Conceptually, a := spec would be treated as two different, unrelated specs. If we're doing that, though, then there's not really any point in the proposal -- we want the model change, not just for := dependencies, but also to allow us to fix some of the awful mess that is ||. - -- Ciaran McCreesh -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlBrL2kACgkQ96zL6DUtXhE1EgCeNANLVxtyb6OSir9LqA+PB+bJ zUkAn2dV2OjMYMB95+tBUYvb3Eda4rU7 =0Cwb -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
