| 1 |
On Mon, 07 May 2012 14:41:33 -0700 |
| 2 |
Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 05/07/2012 01:43 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Mon, 07 May 2012 13:24:31 -0700 |
| 6 |
> > Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> >> On 05/07/2012 12:18 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 9 |
> >>>>>>>> On Mon, 7 May 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 10 |
> >>> |
| 11 |
> >>>> I propose: |
| 12 |
> >>> |
| 13 |
> >>>> REQUIRED_USE="== ( qt webkit )" |
| 14 |
> >>> |
| 15 |
> >>> But this just means that the ebuild has redundant USE flags, so |
| 16 |
> >>> one of them shouldn't be in IUSE, in the first place. |
| 17 |
> >> |
| 18 |
> >> It serves to convey meaning, such that a user who has disabled the |
| 19 |
> >> qt USE flag will get a meaningful prompt if that flag is required |
| 20 |
> >> for webkit support. This kind of information could be useful to |
| 21 |
> >> some people, and it may be preferable to having a separate |
| 22 |
> >> webkit-qt flag. |
| 23 |
> > |
| 24 |
> > If 'qt' flag is required for webkit support, it's 'webkit? ( qt )'. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> What if '!webkit? ( !qt )' also applies though? As an alternative to |
| 27 |
> listing both constraints separately, you could combine them as '^^ ( |
| 28 |
> webkit !qt )', or add support for '== ( qt webkit )' to make the |
| 29 |
> expression easier to read. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Then it's pointless to have the 'webkit' flag which doesn't control |
| 32 |
anything. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Best regards, |
| 36 |
Michał Górny |
Archives