| 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 |
Archives