On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 22:01:54 +0100
Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
> What's the benefit of changing syntax so dramatically? (apart from
> the sake of changing it to someone's liking) and what's so wrong with
> zillion of separate dependency variables? Are they too easy to read,
> implement and understand?
Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
> On Sunday 18 of January 2009 16:21:57 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
>> And yes, I'd really like to see this killed for EAPI 3. Ideally we'd go
>> with a single DEPENDENCIES variable with labels of some kind,
>> something like:
>>
>> DEPENDENCIES="
>> build:
>>
On Sunday 18 of January 2009 16:21:57 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> And yes, I'd really like to see this killed for EAPI 3. Ideally we'd go
> with a single DEPENDENCIES variable with labels of some kind,
> something like:
>
> DEPENDENCIES="
> build:
> foo/bar
> build+run
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 13:21:55 +0200
Petteri Räty wrote:
> One thing to note why it's bad to rely on it is that if you have an
> eclass setting RDEPEND then you are probably not getting what you
> wanted.
Actually, you do. If you have ebuild:
DEPEND="from/ebuild"
and eclass:
DEPEND="from
Peter Volkov wrote:
> Marius Mauch schrieb:
>> It's strongly recommended to set both explicitly
>
> FYI, I've opened bug to add repoman check for this:
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=255358
>
> /me also had feeling that it's good idea to rely on implicit RDEPEND and
> since it's not tr
Marius Mauch schrieb:
> It's strongly recommended to set both explicitly
FYI, I've opened bug to add repoman check for this:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=255358
/me also had feeling that it's good idea to rely on implicit RDEPEND and
since it's not true, it's better to warn developers
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 16:41:25 +0100
Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Marius Mauch schrieb:
> > It's strongly recommended to set both explicitly as the behavior
> > could change in future EAPI versions, and to ensure that you
> > actually think about which deps are build deps and which are
> > runtime deps.
El sáb, 17-01-2009 a las 16:41 +0100, Thomas Sachau escribió:
> Marius Mauch schrieb:
> > On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 14:09:49 +0100
> > Thomas Sachau wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> as specified in the PMS spec [1] and stated in #gentoo-portage,
> >> RDEPEND will be set to DEPEND, if it is not defined in
Marius Mauch schrieb:
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 14:09:49 +0100
> Thomas Sachau wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> as specified in the PMS spec [1] and stated in #gentoo-portage,
>> RDEPEND will be set to DEPEND, if it is not defined in the ebuild
>> itself. But devmanual [2] and developer handbook [3] both state,
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 14:09:49 +0100
Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as specified in the PMS spec [1] and stated in #gentoo-portage,
> RDEPEND will be set to DEPEND, if it is not defined in the ebuild
> itself. But devmanual [2] and developer handbook [3] both state, you
> have do explicitly set RD
Thomas Sachau wrote:
as specified in the PMS spec [1] and stated in #gentoo-portage, RDEPEND will be
set to DEPEND, if it
is not defined in the ebuild itself.
But devmanual [2] and developer handbook [3] both state, you have do explicitly
set RDEPEND because
it may be removed in the future.
P
Hi,
as specified in the PMS spec [1] and stated in #gentoo-portage, RDEPEND will be
set to DEPEND, if it
is not defined in the ebuild itself.
But devmanual [2] and developer handbook [3] both state, you have do explicitly
set RDEPEND because
it may be removed in the future.
Since package manager
12 matches
Mail list logo
