[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual: virtual/podofo-build
From:       Zac Medico <zmedico () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2014-10-16 19:56:32
Message-ID: 544022F0.8070509 () gentoo ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On 10/15/2014 05:36 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Andreas K. Huettel
> <dilfridge@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> In order to solve bug #503802 [1], I would like to add a
>>> virtual/podofo-build package to pull in app-text/podofo and
>>> dev-libs/boost. Then packages like app-text/calibre can put
>>> virtual/podofo-build in DEPEND and app-text/podofo in RDEPEND.
>>
>> This sounds a bit like a one-time solution for a problem that occurs more
>> frequently... It would be nice to have a more generic solution. :|
> 
> If A depends on B, and in order to build A you need C, but in order to
> run B you do not need C, does it make sense to specify C as a
> dependency of B, rather than as a dependency of A?
> 
> The risk I would see is whether that relationship holds 100% of the
> time.  What if somebody comes up with an alternative to boost that is
> not 100% compatible, but it works for calibre (but not other packages
> that DEPEND on podofo)?
> 
> I can see how this approach would work for something like
> split-headers.  However, when you get into things like build systems
> it seems like this could be problematic.  However, I haven't been
> thinking about this for 3 years...  :)

Here's where virtuals are more flexible than the BADEPEND suggested in
bug 392239. If we later find that virtual/podofo-build works for calibre
but not some other reverse-dependency of podofo, then we can always
create a different virtual to put in DEPEND of said reverse-dependency.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]