| 1 |
On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 04:40:02PM +0200, Terje Kvernes wrote: |
| 2 |
> AGottinger@××××××××.de (Achim Gottinger) writes: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > I don't think we need any other extra functionality in portage to |
| 5 |
> > take care about the order of vars in USE. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> what you're basically saying is that it's up to the person making |
| 8 |
> each build to make the choice of which lib to prioritize. |
| 9 |
> personally, I find this rather icky, because it demands that the |
| 10 |
> person installing the packages can't say "media(gdkpixbuf,imlib) and |
| 11 |
> be sure that nothing ever needing just gdkpixbuf won't install |
| 12 |
> imlib. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
The problem is that as of right now, our USE variables don't express |
| 15 |
preference, just whether a particular extension is acceptable or not. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
There may be applications that can link to *both* gdkpixbuf and imlib. There |
| 18 |
are really two easy solutions; and ebuild can prefer the more advanced |
| 19 |
replacement if defined, or if there is an either/or choice (if it's not |
| 20 |
possible to add support for both), we can create two ebuilds: |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
foo-gdkpixbuf |
| 23 |
foo-imlib |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
The either/or option doesn't seem to happen *too* often, so this solution |
| 26 |
could work too. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
The harder third option is to increase the expressiveness of our USE syntax, |
| 29 |
which *is* an option but I'd like to try the above solutions first. The |
| 30 |
advantage to our current approach to USE is that it's quite straightforward. |
| 31 |
If something is in USE, the ebuild will build-in that functionality if it |
| 32 |
can. That's easy for new users to understand. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Best Regards, |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Daniel Robbins <drobbins@g.o> |
| 38 |
President/CEO http://www.gentoo.org |
| 39 |
Gentoo Technologies, Inc. |
Archives