| 1 |
On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 20:24:43 +1200 |
| 2 |
Kent Fredric <kentfredric@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On 3 July 2012 19:08, Ciaran McCreesh |
| 4 |
> <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 15:44:04 +1200 |
| 6 |
> > Kent Fredric <kentfredric@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 7 |
> >> Firstly, we already have a ^^( ) syntax for REQUIRED_USE , "one |
| 8 |
> >> of, but not more than one of". |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > A user has a and b installed. c depends upon ^^ ( a b ). The user |
| 11 |
> > tries to install c. What happens? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I'd expect that the user would have to remove one of ( a b ), the |
| 14 |
> natural choice would be to remove b, a taking precedence. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
But whether or not a and b can be installed together sounds an awful |
| 17 |
lot like a property of a and b, not of c. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives