Ben de Groot posted on Wed, 19 Sep 2012 12:22:06 +0800 as excerpted: > On 16 September 2012 21:15, Brian Harring <ferri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> So... basically, people are already doing this manually with their own >> intermediate vars. > > And this works fine, so it doesn't warrant a cosmetic change. @ferringb: yngwin has a point that I've not seen addressed. What /is/ wrong with the whole CDEPEND intermediate var idea? It seems to work and /I/ don't know of any problems with it (and it would appear, neither does yngwin), yet you talk about it as if there's something wrong with it. And while we're at it, do DEPEND="$RDEPEND ..." style solutions have the same problems (or lack thereof)? FWIW I personally like the whole single-var idea, and CERTAINLY appreciate the various statistical cache savings, etc. If we were starting from scratch now, I'd definitely favor the single var approach. But the combined developer mental cost of having to learn the new method and then maintain a working understanding of both over some longer period is nothing to sneeze at, and I'm not entirely convinced that it's worth that cost, even assuming a doubling of the number of dependency types with a lot of commonality between them, and the added benefit a single deps var would have in that case. And the case for a single deps var isn't being helped by the implication that there's something wrong with both the intermediate var and copying var methods, without ever saying what that "wrong" might be, in the face of the experience of many that those existing methods "just work". So if there's something wrong with them, let's get it out there where people can see it. And if there isn't, please eliminate the noise of that implication from the argument. Thanks. =:^) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
