| 1 |
On 10/25/2010 06:24 AM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: |
| 2 |
> use.unsatisfiable and package.use.unsatisfiable files would cause that `repoman` would treat |
| 3 |
> given USE flags in the same way as masked USE flags. These files wouldn't affect behavior of |
| 4 |
> `emerge`: |
| 5 |
> - If user has enabled given USE flag specified in use.unsatisfiable or package.use.unsatisfiable |
| 6 |
> and if optional dependencies controlled by this USE flag are already installed or satisfiable, |
| 7 |
> then `emerge` will allow to install given package. |
| 8 |
> - If user has enabled given USE flag specified in use.unsatisfiable or package.use.unsatisfiable |
| 9 |
> and if optional dependencies controlled by this USE flag cannot be satisfied (with current |
| 10 |
> settings of ACCEPT_KEYWORDS, /etc/portage/package.keywords etc.), then `emerge` will print |
| 11 |
> informative error message telling e.g. about a dependency masked by ~${ARCH} keyword. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Can't we print a "masked by ~${ARCH} keyword" message as you suggest, |
| 14 |
even without the use.unsatisfiable data? If so, then isn't |
| 15 |
use.unsatisfiable redundant? Your patch [1] seems to behave exactly like |
| 16 |
use.mask, so I don't see any value added. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
As an alternative, I'd suggest an atom syntax extension to indicate that |
| 19 |
a given atom is optional. For example, we could borrow the '?' character |
| 20 |
from regular expression syntax, and append '?' to the right side of an |
| 21 |
atom in order to indicate that it is an optional atom. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
[1] |
| 24 |
http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/portage.git;a=commit;h=93ee6a847be949e7752c3c052d3eb0619e408b43 |
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Thanks, |
| 27 |
Zac |
Archives