-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 13:51:01 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 30/09/12 05:53 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 14:42:14 -0700 Brian Harring > > <ferri...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> The second is that it starts the conceptual shift from "cat/pkg > >>> is a build dep, and cat/pkg is a run dep" to "cat/pkg is a dep > >>> that is required for build and run". > >> > >> Fairly weak argument at best; you're claiming that via labels, > >> "contextually they know it's these deps" in comparison to via > >> dep:build "contextually they know it's exposed only in build". > >> > >> Same difference. > > > > It's rather a big deal now that we have := dependencies. > > > > So you would using your labels syntax, specify an atom with a := dep > using certain labels and the same atom without ':=' on other labels? > I don't quite follow what you're getting at here as to how this is a > big deal..
A := only makes sense for a dependency that is present both at build time and at runtime. Currently, the only place you should be seeing a := is on a spec that is listed in both DEPEND and RDEPEND. Conceptually, the := applies to "the spec that is in both DEPEND and RDEPEND". But with the current syntax, there's no such thing as "the spec that is in both". There are two specs, which happen to be identical as strings, one in DEPEND and one in RDEPEND, and there's no way for the two to be associated. - -- Ciaran McCreesh -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlBrKsEACgkQ96zL6DUtXhEyOACfQgN7K9iPf0o8NF4w95HpFq3j MHQAoKwMwmbJHuF65PIX9b6W0EQLqukl =pzQn -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
