| 1 |
On Mon, 07 May 2012 11:11:04 -0700 |
| 2 |
Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> REQUIRED_USE="webkit? ( qt ) !webkit? ( !qt ) qt? ( webkit ) !qt? ( |
| 4 |
> !webkit )" |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Why do you need to write it both ways? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> It's pretty awkward with the existing operators, but we could extend |
| 9 |
> the REQUIRED_USE syntax to support an equivalent operator in a future |
| 10 |
> EAPI. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
If we're doing this, can we get it in EAPI 5 please, and not use |
| 13 |
workarounds in the tree until EAPI 5 is done? Getting the package |
| 14 |
mangler to come up with good error messages for REQUIRED_USE failures |
| 15 |
is a huge pain, and it gets worse the more clever tricks people come up |
| 16 |
with to get around its inexpressivity. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I propose: |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
REQUIRED_USE="== ( qt webkit )" |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives