| 1 |
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 12:21:10 +0200 |
| 2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> >>>>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2017, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > Does your PMS patch takes into account constructs like: |
| 7 |
> > '|| ( foo? ( bar ) baz? ( bar ) )' ? With foo and baz masked or |
| 8 |
> > disabled, this would end up empty |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Constructs like that will not be affected. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> The proposed change is entirely about banning groups that are |
| 13 |
> literally empty, like "|| ( )", "foo? ( )", etc. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
By removing the part about how to treat empty blocks, I think you're |
| 16 |
changing the semantics of this (it's not just a syntactic change): |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
DEPEND="|| ( foo? ( cat/bar ) baz? ( cat/baf ) )" |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
USE="-foo baz" -> should we (always) pull cat/baf ? |
| 22 |
Subquestion: |
| 23 |
- If yes, does that mean 'foo? ( cat/bar )' is to be |
| 24 |
treated as false with USE=-foo? What about DEPEND="foo? |
| 25 |
( cat/bar )" then ? |
| 26 |
USE="-foo -baz" -> is the whole || satisfied ? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I think that the current defined semantics is that 'foo? ( cat/bar )' |
| 30 |
is neither true nor false with USE=-foo, it's simply removed. Meaning: |
| 31 |
USE="-foo baz" -> this becomes "DEPEND="|| ( baz? ( cat/baf ) )", |
| 32 |
always pulling cat/baf. |
| 33 |
USE="-foo -baz" -> this becomes DEPEND="|| ( )" being empty and thus |
| 34 |
satisfied. (you're changing that) |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Note: Those are not rhetorical questions. I definitely like your |
| 40 |
proposal, I'm just making sure this does not endanger the spec |
| 41 |
soundness and at the same time trying to understand better a part of |
| 42 |
the dependencies specification I've been struggling with. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Alexis. |
Archives