On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 02:08:02PM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 02/10/12 01:56 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 13:51:01 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 30/09/12 05:53 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > >>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 14:42:14 -0700 Brian Harring > >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> The second is that it starts the conceptual shift from > >>>>> "cat/pkg is a build dep, and cat/pkg is a run dep" to > >>>>> "cat/pkg is a dep that is required for build and run". > >>>> > >>>> Fairly weak argument at best; you're claiming that via > >>>> labels, "contextually they know it's these deps" in > >>>> comparison to via dep:build "contextually they know it's > >>>> exposed only in build". > >>>> > >>>> Same difference. > >>> > >>> It's rather a big deal now that we have := dependencies. > >>> > > > >> So you would using your labels syntax, specify an atom with a := > >> dep using certain labels and the same atom without ':=' on other > >> labels? I don't quite follow what you're getting at here as to > >> how this is a big deal.. > > > > 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..
Same difference applies; he's making the claim that the resolver can't tell that the python atom should be the same between build/run: dep:build,run? ( dev-lang/python:2.7= ) build: dev-python/snakeoil # vs labels build+run: dev-lang/python:2.7= build: dev-python/snakeoil The argument there is basically predicated on the belief that only labels can 'color' the sections it contains. This is a bullshit claim, and possibly specific to paludis internal failings. A sane implementation can walk that parse tree, and minimally infer that on it's own via the walk- or if it's saner, just track where things came from, and sort it via that way. Realistically a *good* implementation would likely be doing a partial rendering anyways (a good implementation already has the machinery for this for QA analysis reasons)- meaning conditionals beyond dep: would be finalized, leaving just those nodes unrendered, and then doing quick pass rendering of that intermediate form to get each phases specific requirements. Honestly it's a bullshit argument anyways; the unstated, but core argument of such nonsense is that the resolver if it saw dep:build? ( dev-lang/python:2.7= ) dep:run? ( dev-lang/python:2.7= ) would, because it's not one single build/run construct, think it can vary python:2.7 Any/all sane resolver already do collapsing and stabilization of common nodes across dep phases (and if paludis doesn't, well, that's their mess to sort; we're not getting any PROPERTIES=funky-slots hacks to work around their brain dead breakage here). The same situation can occur w/ labels via eclass dep manipulation; this is an artificial example, but anyone who has done deps know this sort of thing can/does occur via eclasses injecting common deps in: encode? ( build: dev-lang/python:2.7= ) build,run: dev-lang/python:2.7= Oh noes. How ever will the resolver know that it shouldn't vary the micro version of dev-lang/python:2.7 between build and run in that case! You just *know* it wants to vary the micro version because, such a completely fucking worthless thing for the resolver, it must do because it can, right? Etc. It's a pure bullshit argument, potentially derived from implementation issues for his own code, or just academic wankery; unsure of which, don't care which since the core argument is a new level of cracked out. ~harring
