FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 09-07-2012, 06:23 PM
Michał Górny
 
Default Unified DEPENDENCIES concept

On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 13:58:00 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius <axs@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
> >>> <zmedico@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
 
Old 09-07-2012, 06:23 PM
Zac Medico
 
Default Unified DEPENDENCIES concept

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 09/07/2012 11:18 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 09/07/2012 10:58 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>> 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
>>>>> <zmedico@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)?
>
> In the linked chromium-os-dev discussion, the consensus seemed to
> be that migrating deps from DEPEND to HDEPEND would result in
> fewer overall changes than migrating deps from DEPEND to TDEPEND.
> For this reason, the dominant preference was to go with HDEPEND.

Also, if the HDEPEND proposal is accepted, then I would recommend to
treat the migration of dependencies to HDEPEND as entirely optional.
This is similar to the approach that we took with the introduction of
prefix support in EAPI 3, where EAPI 3 ebuilds were not obligated to
support prefix.
- --
Thanks,
Zac
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlBKO6cACgkQ/ejvha5XGaOTVwCfUTyG5yHC6PIoBpsUhWvD874U
bBcAmwfhVLRWRwDBWfI2LvFTdXUY0q7y
=0a/L
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Old 09-07-2012, 06:31 PM
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Default Unified DEPENDENCIES concept

On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 20:23:23 +0200
Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 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.

"The part common with RDEPEND" is a different issue. We're talking
about what the usual thing to do is for dependencies that are in
DEPEND but not RDEPEND. A typical example here is a binary that is
executed as part of the build process.

--
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Old 09-07-2012, 06:46 PM
Michał Górny
 
Default Unified DEPENDENCIES concept

On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 19:31:16 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 20:23:23 +0200
> Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> "The part common with RDEPEND" is a different issue. We're talking
> about what the usual thing to do is for dependencies that are in
> DEPEND but not RDEPEND. A typical example here is a binary that is
> executed as part of the build process.

Thanks for keeping me on the topic.

Now, let me remind you because you probably fail to know the world
outside your dreamworld:

(with HDEPEND/DEPEND) generally mean that we would need to
s/DEPEND/HDEPEND/ for the vast majority of ebuilds (ie all the trivial
ones)?

That does effectively refer to the common depends as well. You know, in
the real world where there is no magical variables which do miracles
behind your back.

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
 
Old 09-07-2012, 06:52 PM
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Default Unified DEPENDENCIES concept

On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 20:46:48 +0200
Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Now, let me remind you because you probably fail to know the world
> outside your dreamworld:
>
> (with HDEPEND/DEPEND) generally mean that we would need to
> s/DEPEND/HDEPEND/ for the vast majority of ebuilds (ie all the
> trivial ones)?
>
> That does effectively refer to the common depends as well. You know,
> in the real world where there is no magical variables which do
> miracles behind your back.

Uhm, no, it doesn't. Things in both DEPEND and RDEPEND are an
*entirely* different case when it comes to destinations, since RDEPEND
goes to ROOT.

The distinction between DEPEND and HDEPEND is relevant only for
dependencies that are not also in RDEPEND.

--
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Old 09-07-2012, 07:11 PM
Michał Górny
 
Default Unified DEPENDENCIES concept

On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 19:52:05 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 20:46:48 +0200
> Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Now, let me remind you because you probably fail to know the world
> > outside your dreamworld:
> >
> > (with HDEPEND/DEPEND) generally mean that we would need to
> > s/DEPEND/HDEPEND/ for the vast majority of ebuilds (ie all the
> > trivial ones)?
> >
> > That does effectively refer to the common depends as well. You know,
> > in the real world where there is no magical variables which do
> > miracles behind your back.
>
> Uhm, no, it doesn't. Things in both DEPEND and RDEPEND are an
> *entirely* different case when it comes to destinations, since RDEPEND
> goes to ROOT.

And? RDEPEND isn't required to be merged before building the package.

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
 
Old 09-07-2012, 07:13 PM
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Default Unified DEPENDENCIES concept

On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 21:11:22 +0200
Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 19:52:05 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 20:46:48 +0200
> > Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > Now, let me remind you because you probably fail to know the world
> > > outside your dreamworld:
> > >
> > > (with HDEPEND/DEPEND) generally mean that we would need to
> > > s/DEPEND/HDEPEND/ for the vast majority of ebuilds (ie all the
> > > trivial ones)?
> > >
> > > That does effectively refer to the common depends as well. You
> > > know, in the real world where there is no magical variables which
> > > do miracles behind your back.
> >
> > Uhm, no, it doesn't. Things in both DEPEND and RDEPEND are an
> > *entirely* different case when it comes to destinations, since
> > RDEPEND goes to ROOT.
>
> And? RDEPEND isn't required to be merged before building the package.

I repeat: "things in both DEPEND and RDEPEND".

I also repeat: HDEPEND is relevant only to things that are in DEPEND
and not RDEPEND.

--
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Old 09-07-2012, 07:21 PM
Michał Górny
 
Default Unified DEPENDENCIES concept

On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 20:13:19 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 21:11:22 +0200
> Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 19:52:05 +0100
> > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 20:46:48 +0200
> > > Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > > Now, let me remind you because you probably fail to know the
> > > > world outside your dreamworld:
> > > >
> > > > (with HDEPEND/DEPEND) generally mean that we would need to
> > > > s/DEPEND/HDEPEND/ for the vast majority of ebuilds (ie all the
> > > > trivial ones)?
> > > >
> > > > That does effectively refer to the common depends as well. You
> > > > know, in the real world where there is no magical variables
> > > > which do miracles behind your back.
> > >
> > > Uhm, no, it doesn't. Things in both DEPEND and RDEPEND are an
> > > *entirely* different case when it comes to destinations, since
> > > RDEPEND goes to ROOT.
> >
> > And? RDEPEND isn't required to be merged before building the
> > package.
>
> I repeat: "things in both DEPEND and RDEPEND".
>
> I also repeat: HDEPEND is relevant only to things that are in DEPEND
> and not RDEPEND.

So... what is your issue in here, sir?

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
 
Old 09-07-2012, 07:25 PM
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Default Unified DEPENDENCIES concept

On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 21:21:42 +0200
Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> So... what is your issue in here, sir?

The issue is what Zac, Ian and I were discussing, before you jumped in
and started yelling. Repeating it for you:

We want to know, for dependencies that are in DEPEND and not RDEPEND,
whether or not most of them will become HDEPENDs, if dependencies are
being expressed properly. If that is the case, then it makes more sense
to introduce TDEPEND than HDEPEND.

--
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Old 09-07-2012, 07:42 PM
Ian Stakenvicius
 
Default Unified DEPENDENCIES concept

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 07/09/12 02:46 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 19:31:16 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh
> <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 20:23:23 +0200 Michał Górny
>> <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> "The part common with RDEPEND" is a different issue. We're
>> talking about what the usual thing to do is for dependencies that
>> are in DEPEND but not RDEPEND. A typical example here is a binary
>> that is executed as part of the build process.
>
> Thanks for keeping me on the topic.
>
> Now, let me remind you because you probably fail to know the world
> outside your dreamworld:
>
> (with HDEPEND/DEPEND) generally mean that we would need to
> s/DEPEND/HDEPEND/ for the vast majority of ebuilds (ie all the
> trivial ones)?
>
> That does effectively refer to the common depends as well. You
> know, in the real world where there is no magical variables which
> do miracles behind your back.
>

RDEPEND is defined in an earlier post (by Zac i think?) as target
build+run dependencies; there are very few actual target build-only
dependencies (ie, deps that need to be installed on the target and
don't need to be installed on the host, and don't need to be on the
target after build time). As such, HDEPEND since it means build-host
build-time deps will still need to have these common dependencies
specified but that doesn't have anything to do with the target's
requirements, which right now are already entirely covered by RDEPEND
(and not DEPEND) at all.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAlBKTg0ACgkQ2ugaI38ACPBZJwD9E9MT2ZVsKt Y+VujuMYjhi5EC
B0RfyRnpXHu4JraBh+0A/014AWaOO3x70axEfdzTFbygRepDe6LWPqFy71nxBC3v
=7hsL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 02:34 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org