On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 13:58:00 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> -----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)? I can't agree unless I am missing something. Doesn't the majority of ebuilds actually require most of DEPEND (well, the part common with RDEPEND) to be installed on the target? I'm thinking of the shared libraries mostly. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
