| 1 |
On Wednesday 10 March 2004 01:27, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 01:05:07 +0900 Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o> |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> wrote: |
| 5 |
> | > > LICENSE="mandatory-license \ |
| 6 |
> | > > ( || choosable-licence1 chooseable-license-2 ) \ |
| 7 |
> | > > useflag? ( optional-component-license )" |
| 8 |
> | > |
| 9 |
> | > Are you sure you mean that? Aren't you aiming for USE-like syntax? |
| 10 |
> | |
| 11 |
> | That's for within ebuilds themselves which is essentially where the |
| 12 |
> | USE flags get processed. What I'm trying to say is that it's probably |
| 13 |
> | easiest to equate DEPEND syntax to LICENSE and USE syntax to |
| 14 |
> | ACCEPT_LICENSE. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> I did of course mean DEPEND like syntax (I blame the coffee...). So... |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> LICENSE="mandatory |
| 19 |
> || ( option-1 option-2 ) |
| 20 |
> foo? ( option-3 )" |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Ahh, the back-slahes. Yes, they are in there just to indicate no EOL. I'll |
| 23 |
remove them for clarity. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
With the use of ||, as far as I know it must be the first element in the |
| 26 |
(sub-)depend string. That's just from looking at portage code, though. I'll |
| 27 |
get its use confirmed and then make sure that the example adheres on the next |
| 28 |
update. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Regards, |
| 31 |
Jason Stubbs |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives