On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:58:30 -0700
Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 09/18/2012 12:44 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:40:51 -0700
> > Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >> On 09/18/2012 12:29 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:25:57 -0700
> >>> Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >>>> Also, if we change the meaning of RDEPEND in the next EAPI, so
> >>>> that it's a hard build-time dep like DEPEND, then
> >>>> DEPEND="${RDEPEND} virtual/pkgconfig" can be reduced to
> >>>> DEPEND="virtual/pkgconfig". This is what I would like to do for
> >>>> the experimental EAPI 5-hdepend which is planned [1].
> >>>
> >>> What're we going to do about the zillions of unsolvable cycles
> >>> that that would create? (Does Portage detect those and error out
> >>> yet?)
> >>
> >> Yeah, it would be treated just like a DEPEND cycle, which is
> >> already detected and treated as a fatal error. As a result, when
> >> bumping the EAPI of an ebuild, you may have to migrate some deps
> >> from RDEPEND to PDEPEND in order to solve the cycles.
> >
> > What about the large number of RDEPENDs that are required for a
> > package to be usable, but not for it to be installed?
>
> You will have to migrate those deps from RDEPEND to PDEPEND....but PDEPENDs aren't guaranteed to be installed before a package is used to satisfy a dependency. (And we can't change PDEPEND to do what RDEPEND currently does, because then some cycles can't be solved at all.) -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
