Re: TOOL_DEPENDS vs pbulk fallout

[Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>]

Jonathan Perkin <jperkin%mnx.io@localhost> writes:

> There was one critical part of the BUILD_DEPENDS to TOOL_DEPENDS
> conversion that was overlooked.  BUILD_DEPENDS are encoded into the
> package metadata, and can be retrieved with "pkg_info -N" to show all
> of the packages a particular package was built with.
>
> pbulk uses this information to determine whether a dependency has
> changed, and therefore whether a downstream package needs to be
> rebuilt or not.
>
> An option would be to include all "tool" depends in @blddep too, but
> that feels wrong, and I don't know how it will handle native tools.

I am guessing this was always wrong, but now we have moved BUILD_DEPENDS
to TOOL_DEPENDS fairly agressively (which is in general right).

My impression, not reliable, is that we should say that

  1) if a TOOL_DEPENDS resolves to a native tool, ignore it

  2) if a TOOL_DEPENDS resolves to a (non-cross) package, add it as
     @blddep (for now), and later add @tooldep in the package format and
     teach pbulk about it

  3) if a TOOL_DEPENDS resolves to a cross package, figure out what to do,
     but don't wait to figure this out to do #2