1 |
Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: |
2 |
> There's also bug 251179[1], which is ugly at first glance, but shows |
3 |
> that we don't really need an extra variable to control dependencies |
4 |
> between USE-flags (it *is* after all a dependency). |
5 |
> |
6 |
> So, we can either use |
7 |
> |
8 |
> use1? ( =${CATEGORY}/${PVR}[use2,use3,use4] ) |
9 |
> |
10 |
> which will probably require less changes to portage's resolver; or |
11 |
> something else like |
12 |
> |
13 |
> use1? ( use2 use3 use4 ) |
14 |
> |
15 |
> The latter is unambiguous because it's not a package atom (no / ). |
16 |
> Either of these will work great when portage gets automatic |
17 |
> USE-dependency enabling. |
18 |
> |
19 |
Indeed, this is doable but I don't think it's clear enough. In addition, |
20 |
speaking of PM, it will force it to be able to detect use1? ( use2 ) and |
21 |
use1? ( cat/pkg ). Speaking of ebuild readability it's also not a good |
22 |
thing because that's not real a dependency. |
23 |
If needed, we can put this in IUSE variable actually. I've nothing |
24 |
against even if I prefer IUSE_REQUIREMENTS because it's clearer: we |
25 |
define IUSE vars somewhere and how to handle them somewhere else. |
26 |
|
27 |
-- |
28 |
Mounir |