On 14 September 2012 10:17, Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
All you need is something in bash that can parse DEPENDENCIES and
populate *DEPEND , and the underlying guts could be done in
practically any language without requiring PM specific
implementations.
You've got it inverted; if
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 11:06:01PM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote:
On 14 September 2012 10:17, Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
All you need is something in bash that can parse DEPENDENCIES and
populate *DEPEND , and the underlying guts could be done in
practically any language without
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 13:33:18 -0700
Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 11:06:01PM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote:
On 14 September 2012 10:17, Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com
wrote:
All you need is something in bash that can parse DEPENDENCIES and
populate
On 11 September 2012 14:16, Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 04:14:17PM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
Is there anything in particular in the spec/proposal for DEPENDENCIES
that would exclude the addition of individual build: app-cat/myatom
run: app-cat/myatom
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 07:18:54AM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote:
On 11 September 2012 14:16, Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 04:14:17PM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
Is there anything in particular in the spec/proposal for DEPENDENCIES
that would exclude the
On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 04:14:17PM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
Is there anything in particular in the spec/proposal for DEPENDENCIES
that would exclude the addition of individual build: app-cat/myatom
run: app-cat/myatom deps by an eclass or eclasses? I know the
goal here is to make things
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 18:55:10 -0400
Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com wrote:
I think that dependencies are ultimately not hierarchical
Situations like foo? ( bar? ( || ( a ( b c ) ) ) ) do happen, so any
new syntax would have to be able to deal with that.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 18:55:10 -0400
Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com 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
On 09/08/2012 02:43 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 18:55:10 -0400 Michael Orlitzky
mich...@orlitzky.com wrote:
I think that dependencies are ultimately not hierarchical
Situations like foo? ( bar? ( || ( a ( b c ) ) ) ) do happen, so
any new syntax would have to be able to
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 4:45 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com 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
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.
We observe that a typical package will have something like this:
DEPEND=
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 12:45:59 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com 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
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 14:29:41 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Here's the important bit, which I shall prefix with some stars:
*** The point of DEPENDENCIES is not to replace n variables with one
*** variable.
Yes, it is.
You've clearly either completely missed the point of
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 13:36:05 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
These are the rules for a machine. People don't actually read
dependencies sequentially. Provide a good algorithm which works from
any position.
Read backwards from the current position until you find
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 16:23:16 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 13:36:05 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
These are the rules for a machine. People don't actually read
dependencies sequentially. Provide a good algorithm which works
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 10:50:40 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 07/09/12 07:45 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
[ Snip! ] Note also how the foo-related things, the bar-related
things etc cannot be grouped together by their fooness or
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 15:53:50 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 16:23:16 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 13:36:05 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
These are the rules for a machine.
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 17:02:57 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
The problem is that you're arguing against a proposal that doesn't
exist except in your head. If you'd like to read and understand the
proposal being made, which starts with understanding the bits marked
clearly with
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 16:07:54 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 17:02:57 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
The problem is that you're arguing against a proposal that doesn't
exist except in your head. If you'd like to read and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
(Just for the record, I don't care about the merits or demerits of
*DEPEND or DEPENDENCIES.)
Ah, I forgot how the goals change *everything*. Because it's good
to kill hundreds of people for the good reasons.
You might want to take a short break to
I actually do like the concept but I'm not sure we can reach consensus
about '*DEPEND vs DEPENDENCIES'; a possibility to get people used to it
could be to have two parallel EAPIs, like 6 and 6-dependencies, where
the former will keep the old style and the latter use DEPENDENCIES.
After some time
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 12:46:41 -0300
Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote:
I actually do like the concept but I'm not sure we can reach consensus
about '*DEPEND vs DEPENDENCIES'; a possibility to get people used to
it could be to have two parallel EAPIs, like 6 and 6-dependencies,
where the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/09/12 12:03 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 12:46:41 -0300 Alexis Ballier
aball...@gentoo.org wrote:
I actually do like the concept but I'm not sure we can reach
consensus about '*DEPEND vs DEPENDENCIES'; a possibility to get
On 9/7/12 5:46 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
I actually do like the concept but I'm not sure we can reach consensus
about '*DEPEND vs DEPENDENCIES'
I also like at least significant parts of the DEPENDENCIES concept,
especially when we start adding more dep variables like HDEPEND.
My understanding
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 12:46:41 -0300
Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote:
For example, what is the HDEPEND equivalent for DEPENDENCIES ? exherbo
documentation doesn't seem to mention an equivalent label.
DEPENDENCIES is essentially independent of what label names we
introduce. I get the
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/09/12 12:03 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 12:46:41 -0300 Alexis Ballier
aball...@gentoo.org wrote:
I actually do like the concept but I'm not sure we
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 12:28:31 -0400
Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
An intermediate form of that might be useful for auditing the tree and
finding packages which aren't expressing, e.g. RDEPENDS, but probably
should.
RDEPEND=DEPEND was removed in EAPI 4, if that's what you mean.
--
Ciaran
On 9/7/12 6:03 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
Why the dev community only? We have many active contributors who aren't
devs and who work hard with ebuilds. It's *their* time which will be
wasted on rewriting dependencies into new form, not yours.
Should those contributors also vote? Do they have any
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 18:12:08 +0200
Paweł Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 9/7/12 5:46 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
I actually do like the concept but I'm not sure we can reach
consensus about '*DEPEND vs DEPENDENCIES'
I also like at least significant parts of the DEPENDENCIES
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 18:40:47 +0200
Paweł Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote:
Also, requiring a rewrite of all existing ebuilds doesn't sound like a
good idea. I think this should be designed not to require a rewrite,
and then the concern about wasted time disappears.
Uh, there is no
On 09/07/2012 09:10 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 12:46:41 -0300
Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote:
For example, what is the HDEPEND equivalent for DEPENDENCIES ? exherbo
documentation doesn't seem to mention an equivalent label.
DEPENDENCIES is essentially
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 09:53:46 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
If you're insinuating that Portage may not have a
fully-ROOT-and-/-aware resolver, then I can assure you that this is
not a problem.
In that case, why do we need HDEPEND at all?
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/09/12 12:58 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 09:53:46 -0700 Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org
wrote:
If you're insinuating that Portage may not have a
fully-ROOT-and-/-aware resolver, then I can assure you that
this is not a
On 09/07/2012 09:58 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 09:53:46 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
If you're insinuating that Portage may not have a
fully-ROOT-and-/-aware resolver, then I can assure you that this is
not a problem.
In that case, why do we need HDEPEND
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 18:03:51 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 12:46:41 -0300
Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote:
I actually do like the concept but I'm not sure we can reach
consensus about '*DEPEND vs DEPENDENCIES'; a possibility to get
people used to
On 09/07/2012 10:02 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
On 07/09/12 12:58 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 09:53:46 -0700 Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org
wrote:
If you're insinuating that Portage may not have a
fully-ROOT-and-/-aware resolver, then I can assure you that
this is not a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/09/12 01:40 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
On 09/07/2012 10:02 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
On 07/09/12 12:58 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 09:53:46 -0700 Zac Medico
zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
If you're insinuating that Portage may
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/07/2012 10:58 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
On 07/09/12 01:40 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
On 09/07/2012 10:02 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
On 07/09/12 12:58 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 09:53:46 -0700 Zac Medico
zmed...@gentoo.org
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 14:40:25 -0300
Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 18:03:51 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 12:46:41 -0300
Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote:
I actually do like the concept but I'm not sure we can
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 13:58:00 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/09/12 01:40 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
On 09/07/2012 10:02 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
On 07/09/12 12:58 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 09:53:46
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/07/2012 11:18 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
On 09/07/2012 10:58 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
On 07/09/12 01:40 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
On 09/07/2012 10:02 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
On 07/09/12 12:58 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 11:18:28 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
In the linked chromium-os-dev discussion, the consensus seemed to be
that migrating deps from DEPEND to HDEPEND would result in fewer
overall changes than migrating deps from
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 20:23:23 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
I can't agree unless I am missing something. Doesn't the majority of
ebuilds actually require most of DEPEND (well, the part common with
RDEPEND) to be installed on the target? I'm thinking of the shared
libraries mostly.
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 19:31:16 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 20:23:23 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
I can't agree unless I am missing something. Doesn't the majority of
ebuilds actually require most of DEPEND (well, the part common
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 20:46:48 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Now, let me remind you because you probably fail to know the world
outside your dreamworld:
(with HDEPEND/DEPEND) generally mean that we would need to
s/DEPEND/HDEPEND/ for the vast majority of ebuilds (ie all the
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 19:52:05 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 20:46:48 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Now, let me remind you because you probably fail to know the world
outside your dreamworld:
(with HDEPEND/DEPEND) generally
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 21:11:22 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 19:52:05 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 20:46:48 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Now, let me remind you because you probably fail to know
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 20:13:19 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 21:11:22 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 19:52:05 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 20:46:48 +0200
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 21:21:42 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
So... what is your issue in here, sir?
The issue is what Zac, Ian and I were discussing, before you jumped in
and started yelling. Repeating it for you:
We want to know, for dependencies that are in DEPEND and not RDEPEND,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/09/12 02:46 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 19:31:16 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 20:23:23 +0200 Michał Górny
mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
I can't agree unless I am missing
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 20:21:03 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 14:40:25 -0300
Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 18:03:51 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 12:46:41 -0300
Alexis Ballier
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 20:25:58 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 21:21:42 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
So... what is your issue in here, sir?
The issue is what Zac, Ian and I were discussing, before you jumped in
and started
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/09/12 02:52 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 20:46:48 +0200 Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org
wrote:
Now, let me remind you because you probably fail to know the
world outside your dreamworld:
(with HDEPEND/DEPEND) generally
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 16:59:48 -0300
Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 20:21:03 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 14:40:25 -0300
Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 18:03:51 +0200
Michał Górny
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/09/12 04:10 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 16:59:48 -0300 Alexis Ballier
aball...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 20:21:03 +0200 Michał Górny
mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 14:40:25 -0300 Alexis Ballier
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 16:08:53 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
Bringing it back to the issue it's solving:
Afaict, for migration:
- - DEPEND changes to HDEPEND
If we're going by Chromium, AFAICS they're only making this change when
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 22:07:30 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 20:25:58 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 21:21:42 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
So... what is your issue in here, sir?
The issue is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/09/12 04:14 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 16:08:53 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
a...@gentoo.org wrote:
Bringing it back to the issue it's solving:
Afaict, for migration:
- - DEPEND changes to HDEPEND
If we're going by
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 16:28:40 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
- - the new DEPEND now will be used for things that are
*currently* in RDEPEND and DEPEND (so that things will work) but
are not actually run-time dependencies. Said
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
On 09/07/12 19:45, 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.
There's change, and there's progress.
61 matches
Mail list logo
