On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 04:49:21 -0700 Brian Harring <ferri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 01:21:26PM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote: > > 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. > > Are we now expecting deps to give us ponies or something? We know > *exactly* what we want from deps, and their current definition- the > problem isn't the definition, it's that we don't have the forms we > need. No, the problem is that we think we need more than we have now. Unless you're considering the whole point of this thread is cosmetics... then please leave that to Fedora or other people who are paid to change stuff just because they can. > > Just because we have something semi-correct right now, doesn't > > mean that we don't want to change that. > > This is a no-op argument against the proposal: "we can't > change the deps because we might want to change the deps". It's also > irrelevant due to the core basis of it being broken as fuck > (described above). What I'm trying to say is that you're making a lot of noise about cosmetics while we haven't even agreed on what's supposed to be inside. So, are we introducing this obtuse syntax for three DEPEND variables, of which the third is almost never used? -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
