| 1 |
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:05:56 +0100 Thomas de Grenier de Latour |
| 2 |
<degrenier@×××××××××××.fr> wrote: |
| 3 |
| On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:08:48 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh |
| 4 |
| <ciaranm@×××××××.org> wrote: |
| 5 |
| > As has been discussed in the past, the only correct way of handling |
| 6 |
| > this from an ebuild perspective is lots of use && has_version calls |
| 7 |
| |
| 8 |
| Which sounds like trying to mimic whatever the deps solver logic may |
| 9 |
| have been, no? So, why not just let the dep solver itself give the |
| 10 |
| right answer to the ebuild? It could well set a resolved DEPEND |
| 11 |
| variable (lets call it $RESOLVED_DEPEND for instance) in the ebuild |
| 12 |
| env, that one could query with some helper functions. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
That strikes me as another large complication. Something that |
| 15 |
complicated shouldn't be necessary. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Also, I'd like an EAPI-0-able solution :) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
| > So, is there a legitimate reason for this complication to exist? Or |
| 20 |
| > should use? blocks being direct children of || ( ) be forbidden? |
| 21 |
| |
| 22 |
| It's not clear to me what would be your prefered DEPEND syntax for the |
| 23 |
| ebuild(5) example you've quoted. Something like this maybe?: |
| 24 |
| sdl? ( media-libs/libsdl ) |
| 25 |
| !sdl? ( |
| 26 |
| svga? ( media-libs/svgalib ) |
| 27 |
| !svga? ( |
| 28 |
| ... |
| 29 |
| |
| 30 |
| (which is not really equivalent) |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Right. It's not the same, but it's a lot more logical. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
| 36 |
Mail : ciaranm at ciaranm.org |
| 37 |
Web : http://ciaranm.org/ |
| 38 |
Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ |
Archives