Re: [gentoo-dev] RDEPEND definition in docs differ from official PMS specs

2009-01-18 Thread Peter Volkov
Marius Mauch schrieb: It's strongly recommended to set both explicitly FYI, I've opened bug to add repoman check for this: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=255358 /me also had feeling that it's good idea to rely on implicit RDEPEND and since it's not true, it's better to warn developers

Re: [gentoo-dev] RDEPEND definition in docs differ from official PMS specs

2009-01-18 Thread Petteri Räty
Peter Volkov wrote: Marius Mauch schrieb: It's strongly recommended to set both explicitly FYI, I've opened bug to add repoman check for this: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=255358 /me also had feeling that it's good idea to rely on implicit RDEPEND and since it's not true, it's

Re: [gentoo-dev] RDEPEND definition in docs differ from official PMS specs

2009-01-18 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 13:21:55 +0200 Petteri Räty betelge...@gentoo.org wrote: One thing to note why it's bad to rely on it is that if you have an eclass setting RDEPEND then you are probably not getting what you wanted. Actually, you do. If you have ebuild: DEPEND=from/ebuild and eclass:

Re: [gentoo-dev] RDEPEND definition in docs differ from official PMS specs

2009-01-18 Thread Maciej Mrozowski
On Sunday 18 of January 2009 16:21:57 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: And yes, I'd really like to see this killed for EAPI 3. Ideally we'd go with a single DEPENDENCIES variable with labels of some kind, something like: DEPENDENCIES= build: foo/bar build+run:

Re: [gentoo-dev] RDEPEND definition in docs differ from official PMS specs

2009-01-18 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 22:01:54 +0100 Maciej Mrozowski reave...@poczta.fm wrote: What's the benefit of changing syntax so dramatically? (apart from the sake of changing it to someone's liking) and what's so wrong with zillion of separate dependency variables? Are they too easy to read, implement

Re: [gentoo-dev] RDEPEND definition in docs differ from official PMS specs

2009-01-17 Thread Jan Kundrát
Thomas Sachau wrote: as specified in the PMS spec [1] and stated in #gentoo-portage, RDEPEND will be set to DEPEND, if it is not defined in the ebuild itself. But devmanual [2] and developer handbook [3] both state, you have do explicitly set RDEPEND because it may be removed in the future.

Re: [gentoo-dev] RDEPEND definition in docs differ from official PMS specs

2009-01-17 Thread Marius Mauch
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 14:09:49 +0100 Thomas Sachau to...@gentoo.org wrote: Hi, as specified in the PMS spec [1] and stated in #gentoo-portage, RDEPEND will be set to DEPEND, if it is not defined in the ebuild itself. But devmanual [2] and developer handbook [3] both state, you have do

Re: [gentoo-dev] RDEPEND definition in docs differ from official PMS specs

2009-01-17 Thread Thomas Sachau
Marius Mauch schrieb: On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 14:09:49 +0100 Thomas Sachau to...@gentoo.org wrote: Hi, as specified in the PMS spec [1] and stated in #gentoo-portage, RDEPEND will be set to DEPEND, if it is not defined in the ebuild itself. But devmanual [2] and developer handbook [3] both

Re: [gentoo-dev] RDEPEND definition in docs differ from official PMS specs

2009-01-17 Thread Santiago M. Mola
El sáb, 17-01-2009 a las 16:41 +0100, Thomas Sachau escribió: Marius Mauch schrieb: On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 14:09:49 +0100 Thomas Sachau to...@gentoo.org wrote: Hi, as specified in the PMS spec [1] and stated in #gentoo-portage, RDEPEND will be set to DEPEND, if it is not defined in

Re: [gentoo-dev] RDEPEND definition in docs differ from official PMS specs

2009-01-17 Thread Marius Mauch
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 16:41:25 +0100 Thomas Sachau to...@gentoo.org wrote: Marius Mauch schrieb: It's strongly recommended to set both explicitly as the behavior could change in future EAPI versions, and to ensure that you actually think about which deps are build deps and which are