-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 07/09/12 01:40 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > On 09/07/2012 10:02 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> On 07/09/12 12:58 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >>> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 09:53:46 -0700 Zac Medico >>> <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>>> If you're insinuating that Portage may not have a >>>> "fully-ROOT-and-/-aware resolver", then I can assure you >>>> that this is not a problem. >> >>> In that case, why do we need HDEPEND at all? >> >> >> We don't, actually; HDEPEND is essentially DEPEND. what we need >> is TDEPEND. > > We could do either one (or do both, and get rid of DEPEND). In > discussions on the chromium-os-dev list [1] (people who could have > been using HDEPEND for years now), the dominant preference was to > use HDEPEND since they felt that it would require the least amount > of adjustment to existing DEPEND settings. > > [1] > https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/chromium-os-dev/yVAcpfZHrOE
Thanks > for clarifying this; after reading through the bug I wasn't sure if the recommendation was to add HDEPEND only or to deprecate DEPEND entirely for HDEPEND/TDEPEND. Just to clarify the work involved in converting to this; since DEPEND on EAPI<=4 is essentially HDEPEND , wouldn't migration to the new EAPI (with HDEPEND/DEPEND) generally mean that we would need to s/DEPEND/HDEPEND/ for the vast majority of ebuilds (ie all the trivial ones)? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlBKNagACgkQ2ugaI38ACPD7fAD+ItO84yPGTtG5G9aY0nJvTheA QP4CRV8euHOUeCt1CGsBAK0DbpLXnARHd6lHYCAnuihezRRYr8rO8xw7kIKmlx/U =DkxI -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
