On 05/30/2018 04:49 AM, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> HOORAY, seems like EAPI 7 might be able to obsolete the "prefix-chaining"
> portage patch I've carried in prefix-overlay all the time, thank you for that!
>
> However, a first thing being unclear already came up when bumping EAPI 6 to 7:
>
> For example, the current app-misc/ca-certificates ebuild (EAPI 6) contains:
>
> # c_rehash: we run `c_rehash`
> # debianutils: we run `run-parts`
> RDEPEND="${DEPEND}
> app-misc/c_rehash
> sys-apps/debianutils"
>
> pkg_postinst() {
> if [ -d "${EROOT}/usr/local/share/ca-certificates" ] ; then
> # if the user has local certs, we need to rebuild again
> # to include their stuff in the db.
> # However it's too overzealous when the user has custom certs in
> place.
> # --fresh is to clean up dangling symlinks
> "${EROOT}"/usr/sbin/update-ca-certificates --root "${ROOT}"
> fi
> }
>
> Thing is, these RDEPENDs are not really required to "run" ca-certificates,
> but to
> administrate it - which eventually is done on the CBUILD machine (from within
> the
> ebuild, like in pkg_postinst currently), not necessarily on the CHOST machine.
>
> So I do not necessarily want these RDEPENDs to be installed on the CHOST
> machine,
> given that they may not be executed from within the CBUILD machine at all.
>
> So the first idea is to move both RDEPENDs into BDEPEND. But then, they are
> not guaranteed to be available during pkg_postinst - like for a binary
> package.
Right, so it really belongs in RDEPEND *and* BDEPEND.
> Question now is: Is this wrong behaviour in the ebuild,
> or is this something where EAPI 7 is still insufficient for?
If we want to tune the dependencies more finely, we'll need new EAPI.
> When this is wrong (probably independent of EAPI 7 already) in the ebuild:
> How can the ebuild get such a use case right, especially with EAPI 7?
What's wrong with putting it in both?
> Thanks!
> /haubi/
>
--
Thanks,
Zac
