| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 12/08/15 12:42 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
| 6 |
>> 2 - is there a particular reasoning for the - in front of qt4 |
| 7 |
>> here? I only ask because it would seem that a single |
| 8 |
>> default-enable should suffice in lists like this to indicate a |
| 9 |
>> resolution path, no? That is, '^^ ( +flag1 -flag2 -flag3 -flag4 |
| 10 |
>> )' to me seems like it would be the same as '^^ ( +flag1 flag2 |
| 11 |
>> flag3 flag4 )' |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> If the user has both "qt4 qt5", then enabling qt5 alone won't |
| 14 |
> help to resolve "^^ ( qt5 qt4 )". |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Right, but the PM knows based on a particular REQUIRED_USE operator |
| 18 |
what it would need to do when a particular flag is set to default. |
| 19 |
Given '^^' is must-be-one-of, the +flag would be enabled and all the |
| 20 |
other flags would be disabled, right? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Here's how I'd see it mapping out: |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|| ( +flag1 flag2 ... ) , PM only forces-on flag1 |
| 25 |
^^ ( +flag1 flag2 ... ) , PM forces-on flag1, forces-off all others |
| 26 |
?? ( +flag2 flag2 ... ) , PM forces off all but flag1 |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I'm not sure if the following make sense though... thoughts? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
{,!}flag1? ( +flag2 ) , PM forces-on flag2 |
| 31 |
{,!}flag1? ( +!flag2 ) , PM forces !flag2, meaning forces-off flag2 |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
I'm just wondering if it's really necessary in terms of syntax to |
| 35 |
specify the flag-negation that the PM would need to do. |
| 36 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 37 |
Version: GnuPG v2 |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlXLevUACgkQAJxUfCtlWe2egAD+K8DCAD4UfqR3A6GKNBcSzIL9 |
| 40 |
9NaJrt8TX/LRl3uSP8MBAJjwh5ybmY42dEe3lTBlHhlAv7entRSdzKM6tmwB26WW |
| 41 |
=scA5 |
| 42 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives