Tako Schotanus

I'm generally on board with most things described in the proposal (understanding that things like @aalmiray 's comments might still change the final exact details). The only thing I'm wary...

@maxandersen ok, but what use would the //MDEPS have then? Because the example you gave with `//MDEPS java.sql` is exactly what you'd put in a module info file. It would...

Oh sure, the extension of the directives format seems to be okay. (Personally I'm more a fan of `//DEPS[xxx]` than `//DEPS{xxx}` but that's minor) The parsing and the "model" will...

Another idea that follows more the original suggestion but doesn't affect the names of the directives themselves would be to use: ``` //DEPS {build} xxx, yyy //DEPS {run} zzz ```...

> Also having it at start makes it work same way on command line. I'm not sure I understand what you are referring to here? I would say that having...

> Today it's build,run combined. I think today it's at least "build,run,agent" (if you're still thinking about introducing "agent") ~Btw, I don't think we should complicate this, but if the...

You're right, but I knew there was something: it does actually take any additional dependencies added on the commandline with `--deps`.

A _separate_ file, just to define some "profiles"? Please people, remember that all this is supposed to be _really_ simple. Extra config files, of whatever format, just to add extra...

> Do you have this format in mind? Yes, although I would go for shorter keys, simply: ``` //DEPS {os=macos, arch=amd64} org.lwjgl:lwjgl:3.3.6:natives-macos ``` No need to be overly technical with...

> Please keep in mind we need this ... Sure, this is a generic idea that could be applied to any relevant directives. (Perhaps just bite the bullet and add...