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 09-18-2012, 07:58 PM
Zac Medico
 
Default GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal

On 09/18/2012 12:44 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:40:51 -0700
> Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On 09/18/2012 12:29 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:25:57 -0700
>>> Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>> Also, if we change the meaning of RDEPEND in the next EAPI, so that
>>>> it's a hard build-time dep like DEPEND, then DEPEND="${RDEPEND}
>>>> virtual/pkgconfig" can be reduced to DEPEND="virtual/pkgconfig".
>>>> This is what I would like to do for the experimental EAPI
>>>> 5-hdepend which is planned [1].
>>>
>>> What're we going to do about the zillions of unsolvable cycles that
>>> that would create? (Does Portage detect those and error out yet?)
>>
>> Yeah, it would be treated just like a DEPEND cycle, which is already
>> detected and treated as a fatal error. As a result, when bumping the
>> EAPI of an ebuild, you may have to migrate some deps from RDEPEND to
>> PDEPEND in order to solve the cycles.
>
> What about the large number of RDEPENDs that are required for a package
> to be usable, but not for it to be installed?

You will have to migrate those deps from RDEPEND to PDEPEND.
--
Thanks,
Zac
 
Old 09-18-2012, 08:06 PM
Michał Górny
 
Default GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 19:18:31 +0000
Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, Brian Harring wrote:
> >
> >>> > from diffball (under current EAPIs)
> >>>
> >>> > """
> >>> > RDEPEND=">=sys-libs/zlib-1.1.4
> >>> > >=app-arch/bzip2-1.0.2
> >>> > app-arch/xz-utils"
> >>> > DEPEND="${RDEPEND}
> >>> > virtual/pkgconfig"
> >>> > """
> >>>
> >>> > becomes the following under the proposal:
> >>>
> >>> > """
> >>> > DEPENDENCIES=">=sys-libs/zlib-1.1.4
> >>> > >=app-arch/bzip2-1.0.2
> >>> > app-arch/xz-utils"
> >>> > dep:build? ( virtual/pkgconfig )"
> >>> > """
> >>>
> >>> Which is longer than the original. ;-)
> >
> >> I see 5 lines in the first version, and 4 in the second. I also
> >> see either someone who counted wrong, or basing that statement
> >> purely on byte count (which is frankly arguing to argue on your
> >> part).
> >
> > Can we agree that both counting of lines and characters is
> > silly? ;-) My point was that the new syntax isn't significantly
> > more compact than the present one. In one case there is another
> > variable assignment, in the other case you need an additional
> > "dep:build? ( virtual/pkgconfig )" group.
> >
> > Readability is more important, and there I still don't buy the
> > argument that the new syntax is better, and that any gain would
> > outweigh the cost of changing. After all, the existing variables for
> > dependency specification won't disappear, so devs would have to
> > remember both.
>
> I agree it is a con, but is it a blocker? I mean basically any change
> proposed requires know the old way, and the new way..that is how
> changes work...

That's why people have to think changes through before making them,
and they have to think whether the benefits outweigh the problems
introduced.

So far, I'm not sure if there was a single, complete, exact problem
discussed which is solved by this syntax other than cosmetics.

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
 
Old 09-18-2012, 08:10 PM
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Default GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:58:30 -0700
Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 09/18/2012 12:44 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:40:51 -0700
> > Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >> On 09/18/2012 12:29 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:25:57 -0700
> >>> Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >>>> Also, if we change the meaning of RDEPEND in the next EAPI, so
> >>>> that it's a hard build-time dep like DEPEND, then
> >>>> DEPEND="${RDEPEND} virtual/pkgconfig" can be reduced to
> >>>> DEPEND="virtual/pkgconfig". This is what I would like to do for
> >>>> the experimental EAPI 5-hdepend which is planned [1].
> >>>
> >>> What're we going to do about the zillions of unsolvable cycles
> >>> that that would create? (Does Portage detect those and error out
> >>> yet?)
> >>
> >> Yeah, it would be treated just like a DEPEND cycle, which is
> >> already detected and treated as a fatal error. As a result, when
> >> bumping the EAPI of an ebuild, you may have to migrate some deps
> >> from RDEPEND to PDEPEND in order to solve the cycles.
> >
> > What about the large number of RDEPENDs that are required for a
> > package to be usable, but not for it to be installed?
>
> You will have to migrate those deps from RDEPEND to PDEPEND.

...but PDEPENDs aren't guaranteed to be installed before a package is
used to satisfy a dependency. (And we can't change PDEPEND to do what
RDEPEND currently does, because then some cycles can't be solved at
all.)

--
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Old 09-18-2012, 08:11 PM
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Default GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:06:06 +0200
Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> So far, I'm not sure if there was a single, complete, exact problem
> discussed which is solved by this syntax other than cosmetics.

Perhaps you should read the GLEP then.

--
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Old 09-18-2012, 08:21 PM
Zac Medico
 
Default GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal

On 09/18/2012 01:10 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:58:30 -0700
> Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On 09/18/2012 12:44 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:40:51 -0700
>>> Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>> On 09/18/2012 12:29 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:25:57 -0700
>>>>> Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Also, if we change the meaning of RDEPEND in the next EAPI, so
>>>>>> that it's a hard build-time dep like DEPEND, then
>>>>>> DEPEND="${RDEPEND} virtual/pkgconfig" can be reduced to
>>>>>> DEPEND="virtual/pkgconfig". This is what I would like to do for
>>>>>> the experimental EAPI 5-hdepend which is planned [1].
>>>>>
>>>>> What're we going to do about the zillions of unsolvable cycles
>>>>> that that would create? (Does Portage detect those and error out
>>>>> yet?)
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, it would be treated just like a DEPEND cycle, which is
>>>> already detected and treated as a fatal error. As a result, when
>>>> bumping the EAPI of an ebuild, you may have to migrate some deps
>>>> from RDEPEND to PDEPEND in order to solve the cycles.
>>>
>>> What about the large number of RDEPENDs that are required for a
>>> package to be usable, but not for it to be installed?
>>
>> You will have to migrate those deps from RDEPEND to PDEPEND.
>
> ...but PDEPENDs aren't guaranteed to be installed before a package is
> used to satisfy a dependency. (And we can't change PDEPEND to do what
> RDEPEND currently does, because then some cycles can't be solved at
> all.)

Hmm, I think you're probably right. Let's just forget this idea then.
--
Thanks,
Zac
 
Old 09-18-2012, 08:22 PM
Michał Górny
 
Default GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:11:10 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:06:06 +0200
> Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > So far, I'm not sure if there was a single, complete, exact problem
> > discussed which is solved by this syntax other than cosmetics.
>
> Perhaps you should read the GLEP then.

Thanks for your comprehensive answer. Could you point me, please, where
is there a real, current, exact problem described?

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
 
Old 09-18-2012, 08:27 PM
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Default GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:22:56 +0200
Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:11:10 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:06:06 +0200
> > Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > So far, I'm not sure if there was a single, complete, exact
> > > problem discussed which is solved by this syntax other than
> > > cosmetics.
> >
> > Perhaps you should read the GLEP then.
>
> Thanks for your comprehensive answer. Could you point me, please,
> where is there a real, current, exact problem described?

"Motivation / Rationale"

--
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Old 09-18-2012, 08:37 PM
Ryan Hill
 
Default GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal

On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 06:52:11 -0700
Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com> wrote:

> Folks-
>
> Keeping it short and quick, a basic glep has been written for what I'm
> proposing for DEPENDENCIES enhancement.
>
> The live version of the doc is available at
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~ferringb/unified-dependencies/extensible_dependencies.html
>

*stamp* Ship it!


--
gcc-porting
toolchain, wxwidgets we were never more here, expanse getting broader
@ gentoo.org but bigger boats been done by less water
 
Old 09-18-2012, 08:39 PM
Ian Stakenvicius
 
Default GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal

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

On 18/09/12 04:11 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:06:06 +0200 Michał Górny
> <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> So far, I'm not sure if there was a single, complete, exact
>> problem discussed which is solved by this syntax other than
>> cosmetics.
>
> Perhaps you should read the GLEP then.
>

IIRC, there were no *problems* listed in the glep. There were only a
few things listed that DEPENDENCIES provides advantages over, and a
few things that are (to varying degrees, depending on the dev)
considered to be undesirable.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAlBY2/kACgkQ2ugaI38ACPCcewD9FzAFNIrkumqyI3dZrkshNStu
t5cqqE5YWYltwJwmW0IA/RQAJk2wtzdXp/4NDvJn3zZ3PJhjFODmonRdWab4u/Q7
=g1Xe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Old 09-18-2012, 08:40 PM
Michał Górny
 
Default GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:27:17 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:22:56 +0200
> Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:11:10 +0100
> > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:06:06 +0200
> > > Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > > So far, I'm not sure if there was a single, complete, exact
> > > > problem discussed which is solved by this syntax other than
> > > > cosmetics.
> > >
> > > Perhaps you should read the GLEP then.
> >
> > Thanks for your comprehensive answer. Could you point me, please,
> > where is there a real, current, exact problem described?
>
> "Motivation / Rationale"

Thanks again, I can read. Now, which one is a problem which currently
exists in Gentoo, is exactly described and is not a cosmetic problem?

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:54 PM.

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