On 09/19/2012 06:59 AM, Duncan wrote: > Ben de Groot posted on Wed, 19 Sep 2012 12:22:06 +0800 as excerpted: > >> On 16 September 2012 21:15, Brian Harring <ferri...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> So... basically, people are already doing this manually with their own >>> intermediate vars. >> >> And this works fine, so it doesn't warrant a cosmetic change. > > @ferringb: > > yngwin has a point that I've not seen addressed. > > What /is/ wrong with the whole CDEPEND intermediate var idea? It seems > to work and /I/ don't know of any problems with it (and it would appear, > neither does yngwin), yet you talk about it as if there's something wrong > with it. > > And while we're at it, do DEPEND="$RDEPEND ..." style solutions have the > same problems (or lack thereof)?
The problem appears as we introduce more DEPEND variables (which is what prompted the proposal, IIRC). If we have ADEPEND, BDEPEND, CDEPEND, and DDEPEND, and there's only some (i.e. not total) sharing going on then the COMMON_DEPEND pattern starts to fall apart. You potentially need, AB_DEPEND AC_DEPEND AD_DEPEND BC_DEPEND BD_DEPEND CD_DEPEND ABC_DEPEND ABD_DEPEND ACD_DEPEND BCD_DEPEND ABCD_DEPEND (COMMON_DEPEND) This obviously gets worse as more DEPEND vars are introduced.
