On 09/18/2012 01:10 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> 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.)
Hmm, I think you're probably right. Let's just forget this idea then. :)
--
Thanks,
Zac
