| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
|
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1
|
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:30:02 +0200
|
| 5 |
Thomas Beierlein <tomjbe@g.o> wrote:
|
| 6 |
> > > interesting. I did not know that an ebuild can use-depend on |
| 7 |
> > > itself. Good to know. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > No, not good. It doesn't make any sense. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Can you give some reasoning for that? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
It's entirely unclear what deps upon self actually mean. Some people
|
| 14 |
use them to say that a package needs to be installed before it can
|
| 15 |
install itself. Thus, things like:
|
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
DEPEND="|| ( myself myself-bin )"
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
So a dependency upon myself[foo] would probably mean "I need
|
| 20 |
myself[foo] to be installed before I can install myself", not "I need
|
| 21 |
the foo flag to be set on myself".
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
In any case, abusing DEPEND isn't a mechanism for implementing use
|
| 24 |
requirements. You should use the mechanism that's designed for use
|
| 25 |
requirements to do use requirements, which means waiting for EAPI 4
|
| 26 |
and pkg_pretend, or just follow existing policy and pick one in the
|
| 27 |
case of a conflict.
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
- --
|
| 30 |
Ciaran McCreesh
|
| 31 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
| 32 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux)
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkxJfxcACgkQ96zL6DUtXhGXkQCcDzxMWkqm+ShdOEBOWH0nQJtE
|
| 35 |
q0gAn0TRU7BtLVyKib6YJLNWtjjWoNFk
|
| 36 |
=uYQb
|
| 37 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives