On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 04:10:01 -0700 Brian Harring <ferri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 09:56:27AM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote: > > But consider that for example Zac & AxS (correct me if I recall it > > correctly) considered making changing the meaning of RDEPEND to > > install them before the build, thus effectively making 'build,run' > > useless. > > I really am not trying to be a blatant dick to you, but this has > /zero/ relevance. RDEPEND means "required for runtime". That ain't > changing. If they were discussing changing what RDEPEND meant, then > they were high, period. > > If zac/axs want to try and make the resolver install RDEPEND before > DEPEND... well, they're free to. That doesn't change the fact that > the deps still must be specified correctly; in short, build,run is > very much relevant. I don't think we have made up our mind what *exactly* we want from deps. Just because we have something semi-correct right now, doesn't mean that we don't want to change that. But I guess with the whole amount of noise in here I won't ever get any definitive answer. > There's also the fact doing this means best case, 2 less inodes per > VDB entry (more once we start adding dependency types). For my vdb, > I have 15523 across 798 pkgs. 1331 of that is *DEPEND, converted to > DEPENDENCIES the file count is 748. Note that's preserving DEPEND, > although it's worthless at this stage of the vdb. So 5% reduction in > files in there. Whoopy-de-doo, right? So we can modify vdb now? What about all those applications which obviously are broken due to that? -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
