-----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 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? >>>> >>>> >>>> We don't, actually; HDEPEND is essentially DEPEND. what we >>>> need is TDEPEND. > >>> We could do either one (or do both, and get rid of DEPEND). In >>> discussions on the chromium-os-dev list [1] (people who could >>> have been using HDEPEND for years now), the dominant >>> preference was to use HDEPEND since they felt that it would >>> require the least amount of adjustment to existing DEPEND >>> settings. > >>> [1] >>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/chromium-os-dev/yVAcpfZHrOE > >>> >>> > >> Thanks > >> for clarifying this; after reading through the bug I wasn't sure >> if the recommendation was to add HDEPEND only or to deprecate >> DEPEND entirely for HDEPEND/TDEPEND. > >> Just to clarify the work involved in converting to this; since >> DEPEND on EAPI<=4 is essentially HDEPEND , wouldn't migration to >> the new EAPI (with HDEPEND/DEPEND) generally mean that we would >> need to s/DEPEND/HDEPEND/ for the vast majority of ebuilds (ie >> all the trivial ones)? > > 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 DEPEND to TDEPEND. > For this reason, the dominant preference was to go with HDEPEND.
Also, if the HDEPEND proposal is accepted, then I would recommend to treat the migration of dependencies to HDEPEND as entirely optional. This is similar to the approach that we took with the introduction of prefix support in EAPI 3, where EAPI 3 ebuilds were not obligated to support prefix. - -- Thanks, Zac -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlBKO6cACgkQ/ejvha5XGaOTVwCfUTyG5yHC6PIoBpsUhWvD874U bBcAmwfhVLRWRwDBWfI2LvFTdXUY0q7y =0a/L -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
