1 |
On Monday 02 August 2004 06:27, Martin Schlemmer wrote: |
2 |
> On Sun, 2004-08-01 at 04:01, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
3 |
> > On Sunday 01 August 2004 01:29, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
4 |
> > > On Saturday 31 July 2004 04:32 am, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
5 |
> > > > Well, the idea was that to create local USE flags of the form |
6 |
> > > > cc-${ARCH}, have the gcc ebuilds use them to configure the cross |
7 |
> > > > compiler and also have them control the the slot. The only real |
8 |
> > > > difference to what there is now would be that portage would be able |
9 |
> > > > to forecast the SLOT correctly. |
10 |
> > > |
11 |
> > > so the user would do USE="cc-arm" to get an arm cross compiler ? |
12 |
> > > |
13 |
> > > and then in the ebuild we'd have to do something like: |
14 |
> > > SLOT="cc-arm? ( blah )" ? |
15 |
> > > how'd would we specify a default slot ? |
16 |
> > |
17 |
> > SLOT="!cc-arm? ( !cc-foo? ( !cc-bar? ( !cc-baz ( defaultslot ) ) )" |
18 |
> |
19 |
> I really do not know why there hasn't been a '&&' and '||' logic |
20 |
> added yet? Will it really be that difficult to implement? |
21 |
|
22 |
It would take some time to implement and then testing time and what not. The |
23 |
main reason it hasn't been done is that it doesn't add anything that can't be |
24 |
done already. |
25 |
|
26 |
> > Terrible, no? This is gone anyway. |
27 |
> |
28 |
> What exactly do you mean by this? |
29 |
|
30 |
There is no point adding complexity to SLOT (and making dep calculation |
31 |
intricate and very slow) for the benefit of four ebuilds that could be |
32 |
implemented without the use of dynamic SLOTs anyway. |
33 |
|
34 |
As far as I know, allowing ${KV} as a SLOT was a quick hack to prevent |
35 |
previously installed kernel modules from being unmerged. It was/is a |
36 |
temporary solution until something better is found. That better solution is |
37 |
what I'm looking for here. |
38 |
|
39 |
Regards, |
40 |
Jason Stubbs |
41 |
|
42 |
-- |
43 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |