Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com>
To: Micha?? G??rny <mgorny@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-dev@l.g.o, gentoo-pms@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 12:20:03
Message-Id: 20120928121708.GA2180@localhost
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal by "Michał Górny"
1 On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 08:58:54AM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
2 > On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 06:52:11 -0700
3 > Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote:
4 >
5 > > Keeping it short and quick, a basic glep has been written for what I'm
6 > > proposing for DEPENDENCIES enhancement.
7 > >
8 > > The live version of the doc is available at
9 > > http://dev.gentoo.org/~ferringb/unified-dependencies/extensible_dependencies.html
10 >
11 > One more question -- are we going to keep 'foo,bar?' syntax as
12 > a special case applying only to dependency atoms or are we going to
13 > extend it to USE flags?
14
15 Note that's dep:foo,bar; not a bare "allow any use flags to be OR'd
16 together". In light of the fact it *is* just an expansion hack, the
17 usage is semi limited although there are scenarios for it; arches,
18 namely (if amd64 or x86, use this, if mips, that, etc).
19
20 I have no preference either way; extending it outside of dep isn't
21 necessary if people hate it, although as said, there are some
22 potential uses for it.
23
24 That said, if we were to start using it, the ',' as an 'or' operator
25 mildly sucks; dep:build|run also sucks (hard to read), and
26 dep:build+run, to me at least, implies 'and'. And yep, bikeshedding
27 potential there.
28
29 ~harrin