Re: DEPENDS semantics (was: removing useless dependencies)

[Thomas Klausner <wiz%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 10:06:43AM +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 03:43:26AM +0000, David Holland wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 11:17:40PM +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> >  > > Again: the pattern itself provides the most natural ordering. Anything
> >  > > else violates the principle of least surprise.
> >  > 
> >  > For the most common existing use case, the ordering would be
> >  > counterproductive. Viz.:
> >  > 
> >  > DEPENDS+=	   gtar-base-${PKGVERSION}{,nb*}:../../devel/gtar-base
> >  > 
> >  > by your argument it should prefer gtar-base-1.2.4 to gtar-base-1.2.4nbX.
> > 
> > As I already said once, because we tend to write in ascending order it
> > might make sense to pick from the right, not the left. Or one could
> > easily rewrite as gtar-base-${PKGVERSION}{nb*,}
> > 
> > However, this particular case really ought to be written like this:
> >    gtar-base>=${PKGVERSION}<${PKGVERSION}nb999
> 
> I really don't get why you guys still have ../../ in the path part.
> 
> Basing depends off the PORTSDIR  simplifies everything and is the way
> to do things.
> 
> Heck, you can probably tweak things to match the path part vs
> ../*  as a conditional, so that the migration would be painless.

Good idea.

However, that wouldn't work for the buildlink3.mk files since they are
".include"d, so we'd have "../../" for those but not for DEPENDS.
 Thomas