On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 13:33:18 -0700
Brian Harring wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 11:06:01PM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote:
> > On 14 September 2012 10:17, Brian Harring
> > wrote:
> > >> All you need is something in bash that can parse DEPENDENCIES and
> > >> populate *DEPEND , and the underlying g
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 11:06:01PM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 14 September 2012 10:17, Brian Harring wrote:
> >> All you need is something in bash that can parse DEPENDENCIES and
> >> populate *DEPEND , and the underlying guts could be done in
> >> practically any language without requiring P
On 14 September 2012 10:17, Brian Harring wrote:
>> All you need is something in bash that can parse DEPENDENCIES and
>> populate *DEPEND , and the underlying guts could be done in
>> practically any language without requiring PM specific
>> implementations.
>
> You've got it inverted; if any auto
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 07:18:54AM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 11 September 2012 14:16, Brian Harring wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 04:14:17PM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> >> Is there anything in particular in the spec/proposal for DEPENDENCIES
> >> that would exclude the addition of
On 11 September 2012 14:16, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 04:14:17PM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>> Is there anything in particular in the spec/proposal for DEPENDENCIES
>> that would exclude the addition of individual "build: app-cat/myatom"
>> "run: app-cat/myatom" deps by an
On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 04:14:17PM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> Is there anything in particular in the spec/proposal for DEPENDENCIES
> that would exclude the addition of individual "build: app-cat/myatom"
> "run: app-cat/myatom" deps by an eclass or eclasses? I know the
> "goal" here is to ma
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 4:45 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> Since DEPENDENCIES hasn't been written up in a Gentoo-friendly manner,
> and since the Exherbo documentation doesn't seem to suffice to explain
> the idea here, here's some more details on the DEPENDENCIES proposal.
I like this. It seems we
On 09/08/2012 02:43 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 18:55:10 -0400 Michael Orlitzky
> wrote:
>> I think that dependencies are ultimately not hierarchical
>
> Situations like foo? ( bar? ( || ( a ( b c ) ) ) ) do happen, so
> any new syntax would have to be able to deal with that.
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 18:55:10 -0400
Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 09/07/2012 07:45 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Since DEPENDENCIES hasn't been written up in a Gentoo-friendly
> > manner, and since the Exherbo documentation doesn't seem to suffice
> > to explain the idea here, here's some more det
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 18:55:10 -0400
Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> I think that dependencies are ultimately not hierarchical
Situations like foo? ( bar? ( || ( a ( b c ) ) ) ) do happen, so any
new syntax would have to be able to deal with that.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP sig
On 09/07/12 19:45, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Since DEPENDENCIES hasn't been written up in a Gentoo-friendly manner,
> and since the Exherbo documentation doesn't seem to suffice to explain
> the idea here, here's some more details on the DEPENDENCIES proposal.
>
>
There's change, and there's progres
On 09/07/2012 07:45 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Since DEPENDENCIES hasn't been written up in a Gentoo-friendly
> manner, and since the Exherbo documentation doesn't seem to suffice
> to explain the idea here, here's some more details on the
> DEPENDENCIES proposal.
>
It seems to me that the prob
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 16:28:40 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> >> - - the new DEPEND now will be used for things that are
> >> *currently* in RDEPEND and DEPEND (so that things will work) but
> >> are not actually run-time dependencies. Said atoms will
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/09/12 04:14 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 16:08:53 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
> wrote:
>> Bringing it back to the issue it's solving:
>
>> Afaict, for migration:
>
>> - - DEPEND changes to HDEPEND
>
> If we're going by Chromi
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 22:07:30 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 20:25:58 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 21:21:42 +0200
> > Michał Górny wrote:
> > > So... what is your issue in here, sir?
> >
> > The issue is what Zac, Ian and I were discussing, before you jump
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 16:08:53 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> Bringing it back to the issue it's solving:
>
> Afaict, for migration:
>
> - - DEPEND changes to HDEPEND
If we're going by Chromium, AFAICS they're only making this change when
they find
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/09/12 04:10 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 16:59:48 -0300 Alexis Ballier
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 20:21:03 +0200 Michał Górny
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 14:40:25 -0300 Alexis Ballier
>>> wrote:
>>>
On F
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 16:59:48 -0300
Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 20:21:03 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 14:40:25 -0300
> > Alexis Ballier wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 18:03:51 +0200
> > > Michał Górny wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 12:46:41
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/09/12 02:52 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 20:46:48 +0200 Michał Górny
> wrote:
>> Now, let me remind you because you probably fail to know the
>> world outside your dreamworld:
>>
>> (with HDEPEND/DEPEND) generally mean that
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 20:25:58 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 21:21:42 +0200
> Michał Górny 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 k
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 20:21:03 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 14:40:25 -0300
> Alexis Ballier wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 18:03:51 +0200
> > Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 12:46:41 -0300
> > > Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > >
> > > > I actually do like the conc
-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
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 20:23:23 +0200 Michał Górny
>> wrote:
>>> I can't agree unless I am missing something. Doesn't the
>>> majority of ebuil
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 21:21:42 +0200
Michał Górny 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 mo
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 20:13:19 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 21:11:22 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 19:52:05 +0100
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 20:46:48 +0200
> > > Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > Now, let me remind you because you proba
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 21:11:22 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 19:52:05 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 20:46:48 +0200
> > Michał Górny wrote:
> > > Now, let me remind you because you probably fail to know the world
> > > outside your dreamworld:
> > >
> > >
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 19:52:05 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 20:46:48 +0200
> Michał Górny 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/DEP
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 20:46:48 +0200
Michał Górny 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)
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 19:31:16 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 20:23:23 +0200
> Michał Górny 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
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 20:23:23 +0200
Michał Górny 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 com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 11:18:28 -0700
Zac Medico wrote:
> 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
-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, 0
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 13:58:00 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius 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 -070
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 14:40:25 -0300
Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 18:03:51 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 12:46:41 -0300
> > Alexis Ballier wrote:
> >
> > > I actually do like the concept but I'm not sure we can reach
> > > consensus about '*DEPEND vs DEPENDEN
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
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
wrot
-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
>>> wrote:
If you're insinuating that Portage may not ha
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
>> 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 probl
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 18:03:51 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 12:46:41 -0300
> Alexis Ballier wrote:
>
> > I actually do like the concept but I'm not sure we can reach
> > consensus about '*DEPEND vs DEPENDENCIES'; a possibility to get
> > people used to it could be to have two par
On 09/07/2012 09:58 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 09:53:46 -0700
> Zac Medico 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?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/09/12 12:58 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 09:53:46 -0700 Zac Medico
> 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.
>
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 09:53:46 -0700
Zac Medico 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?
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP sign
On 09/07/2012 09:10 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 12:46:41 -0300
> Alexis Ballier wrote:
>> For example, what is the HDEPEND equivalent for DEPENDENCIES ? exherbo
>> documentation doesn't seem to mention an equivalent label.
>
> DEPENDENCIES is essentially independent of what la
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 18:40:47 +0200
""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" wrote:
> Also, requiring a rewrite of all existing ebuilds doesn't sound like a
> good idea. I think this should be designed not to require a rewrite,
> and then the concern about wasted time disappears.
Uh, there is no "rewriting all exist
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 18:12:08 +0200
""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" wrote:
> On 9/7/12 5:46 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > I actually do like the concept but I'm not sure we can reach
> > consensus about '*DEPEND vs DEPENDENCIES'
>
> I also like at least significant parts of the DEPENDENCIES concept,
> espe
On 9/7/12 6:03 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Why the dev community only? We have many active contributors who aren't
> devs and who work hard with ebuilds. It's *their* time which will be
> wasted on rewriting dependencies into new form, not yours.
Should those contributors also vote? Do they have any
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 12:28:31 -0400
Michael Mol wrote:
> An intermediate form of that might be useful for auditing the tree and
> finding packages which aren't expressing, e.g. RDEPENDS, but probably
> should.
RDEPEND=DEPEND was removed in EAPI 4, if that's what you mean.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
sig
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 07/09/12 12:03 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 12:46:41 -0300 Alexis Ballier
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I actually do like the concept but I'm not sure we can reach
>>> consensu
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 12:46:41 -0300
Alexis Ballier wrote:
> For example, what is the HDEPEND equivalent for DEPENDENCIES ? exherbo
> documentation doesn't seem to mention an equivalent label.
DEPENDENCIES is essentially independent of what label names we
introduce. I get the impression Gentoo will
On 9/7/12 5:46 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> I actually do like the concept but I'm not sure we can reach consensus
> about '*DEPEND vs DEPENDENCIES'
I also like at least significant parts of the DEPENDENCIES concept,
especially when we start adding more dep variables like HDEPEND.
My understanding
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/09/12 12:03 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 12:46:41 -0300 Alexis Ballier
> wrote:
>
>> I actually do like the concept but I'm not sure we can reach
>> consensus about '*DEPEND vs DEPENDENCIES'; a possibility to get
>> people use
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 12:46:41 -0300
Alexis Ballier wrote:
> I actually do like the concept but I'm not sure we can reach consensus
> about '*DEPEND vs DEPENDENCIES'; a possibility to get people used to
> it could be to have two parallel EAPIs, like 6 and 6-dependencies,
> where the former will keep
I actually do like the concept but I'm not sure we can reach consensus
about '*DEPEND vs DEPENDENCIES'; a possibility to get people used to it
could be to have two parallel EAPIs, like 6 and 6-dependencies, where
the former will keep the old style and the latter use DEPENDENCIES.
After some time h
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
(Just for the record, I don't care about the merits or demerits of
*DEPEND or DEPENDENCIES.)
> Ah, I forgot how the goals change *everything*. Because it's good
> to kill hundreds of people for the good reasons.
You might want to take a short break t
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 16:07:54 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 17:02:57 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > > The problem is that you're arguing against a proposal that doesn't
> > > exist except in your head. If you'd like to read and understand
> > > the proposal being made, which s
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 17:02:57 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> > The problem is that you're arguing against a proposal that doesn't
> > exist except in your head. If you'd like to read and understand the
> > proposal being made, which starts with understanding the bits marked
> > clearly with stars, and
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 15:53:50 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 16:23:16 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 13:36:05 +0100
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > > These are the rules for a machine. People don't actually read
> > > > dependencies sequentially. Provide a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 10:50:40 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 07/09/12 07:45 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > [ Snip! ] Note also how the foo-related things, the bar-related
> > things etc cannot be grouped together by their fooness or barness,
> > bu
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 16:23:16 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 13:36:05 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > These are the rules for a machine. People don't actually read
> > > dependencies sequentially. Provide a good algorithm which works
> > > from any position.
> >
> > Read backw
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/09/12 07:45 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> [ Snip! ] Note also how the foo-related things, the bar-related
> things etc cannot be grouped together by their fooness or barness,
> but are rather grouped by their DEPENDness and RDEPENDness.
>
> [ S
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 13:36:05 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > These are the rules for a machine. People don't actually read
> > dependencies sequentially. Provide a good algorithm which works from
> > any position.
>
> Read backwards from the current position until you find a label. It's
> the sa
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 14:29:41 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> > Here's the important bit, which I shall prefix with some stars:
> >
> > *** The point of DEPENDENCIES is not to replace n variables with one
> > *** variable.
>
> Yes, it is.
You've clearly either completely missed the point of all of th
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 12:45:59 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Since DEPENDENCIES hasn't been written up in a Gentoo-friendly manner,
> and since the Exherbo documentation doesn't seem to suffice to explain
> the idea here, here's some more details on the DEPENDENCIES proposal.
>
> We observe that a
Since DEPENDENCIES hasn't been written up in a Gentoo-friendly manner,
and since the Exherbo documentation doesn't seem to suffice to explain
the idea here, here's some more details on the DEPENDENCIES proposal.
We observe that a typical package will have something like this:
DEPEND="
62 matches
Mail list logo
