| 1 |
On Thursday 07 July 2005 11:05 am, twofourtysix wrote: |
| 2 |
> ebuild(5) provides an example of the DEPEND string for a package which |
| 3 |
> can handle exactly one of several different video interfaces: |
| 4 |
> <snip> |
| 5 |
> I've been using a similar construct in one of my local ebuilds. My |
| 6 |
> build code is along the lines of: |
| 7 |
> <snip> |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
while your example is correct, it's prety ugly shell code :P |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> However, a recently overheard conversation on IRC suggests that this |
| 12 |
> is incorrect. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
the only argument ive heard against using || ( ) is binary packages due to the |
| 15 |
'accept any' nature of || ( ) |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
for example: |
| 18 |
|| ( x11-libs/gtk+ media-libs/libsdl ) |
| 19 |
this means either gtk+ or libsdl is OK, but prefer gtk+ if neither exist ... |
| 20 |
but when you go to use a binary package and the system has the other package |
| 21 |
installed, things can go bad ... built against one lib but trying to use the |
| 22 |
runtime from a different one |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> I can find several ebuilds in the tree |
| 25 |
> that appear to use the same technique, however. Are these buggy? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
depends who you ask ... considering it's the simplest technology we have atm |
| 28 |
to get the job done i say the binary package breakage is acceptable ... |
| 29 |
bloating DEPEND as you suggested to work around portage limitations is just |
| 30 |
as bad imo |
| 31 |
-mike |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives