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

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI 7, BDEPEND and pkg_*inst
From:       Zac Medico <zmedico () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2018-05-30 22:58:21
Message-ID: 8064914a-1e9a-b773-e03a-fe5a3c77fcdb () gentoo ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On 05/30/2018 04:49 AM, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> HOORAY, seems like EAPI 7 might be able to obsolete the "prefix-chaining"
> portage patch I've carried in prefix-overlay all the time, thank you for that!
> 
> However, a first thing being unclear already came up when bumping EAPI 6 to 7:
> 
> For example, the current app-misc/ca-certificates ebuild (EAPI 6) contains:
> 
>  # c_rehash: we run `c_rehash`
>  # debianutils: we run `run-parts`
>  RDEPEND="${DEPEND}
>      app-misc/c_rehash
>      sys-apps/debianutils"
> 
>  pkg_postinst() {
>     if [ -d "${EROOT}/usr/local/share/ca-certificates" ] ; then
>         # if the user has local certs, we need to rebuild again
>         # to include their stuff in the db.
>         # However it's too overzealous when the user has custom certs in place.
>         # --fresh is to clean up dangling symlinks
>         "${EROOT}"/usr/sbin/update-ca-certificates --root "${ROOT}"
>     fi
>  }
> 
> Thing is, these RDEPENDs are not really required to "run" ca-certificates, but to
> administrate it - which eventually is done on the CBUILD machine (from within the
> ebuild, like in pkg_postinst currently), not necessarily on the CHOST machine.
> 
> So I do not necessarily want these RDEPENDs to be installed on the CHOST machine,
> given that they may not be executed from within the CBUILD machine at all.
> 
> So the first idea is to move both RDEPENDs into BDEPEND.  But then, they are
> not guaranteed to be available during pkg_postinst - like for a binary package.

Right, so it really belongs in RDEPEND *and* BDEPEND.

> Question now is: Is this wrong behaviour in the ebuild,
> or is this something where EAPI 7 is still insufficient for?

If we want to tune the dependencies more finely, we'll need new EAPI.

> When this is wrong (probably independent of EAPI 7 already) in the ebuild:
> How can the ebuild get such a use case right, especially with EAPI 7?

What's wrong with putting it in both?

> Thanks!
> /haubi/
> 
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

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