1 |
On Thursday 26 January 2006 20:56, Brian Harring wrote: |
2 |
> Patch misses on |
3 |
> || ( virtual/x11 ) |
4 |
|
5 |
A theoretical case, but if you want to cover it... |
6 |
|
7 |
> || ( x86? ( virtual/x11 ) b ) |
8 |
> via the latter, kind of guranteed it's going to miss on |
9 |
|
10 |
It's not a "miss" per se as much as other dependency checks that aren't |
11 |
performed are a miss when there is invalid syntax - which prevents a commit |
12 |
anyway. If you make "b" a proper atom that specifies a category it'll be |
13 |
picked up. |
14 |
|
15 |
> || ( x86? ( valid-dep ) virtual/x11 ) |
16 |
|
17 |
There is no way that I can see around this without highly increasing the |
18 |
possibility of false positives. Are you planning to treat arch flags |
19 |
separately? |
20 |
|
21 |
-- |
22 |
Jason Stubbs |
23 |
-- |
24 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |