On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 20:44:33 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> 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?
They will still be RDEPEND, just installed earlier I believe. Except
for those arising conflicts which will have to be moved to PDEP. But
I think Zac said that already.
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
