| 1 |
On 09/19/2012 06:59 AM, Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ben de Groot posted on Wed, 19 Sep 2012 12:22:06 +0800 as excerpted: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> On 16 September 2012 21:15, Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>>> So... basically, people are already doing this manually with their own |
| 7 |
>>> intermediate vars. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> And this works fine, so it doesn't warrant a cosmetic change. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> @ferringb: |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> yngwin has a point that I've not seen addressed. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> What /is/ wrong with the whole CDEPEND intermediate var idea? It seems |
| 16 |
> to work and /I/ don't know of any problems with it (and it would appear, |
| 17 |
> neither does yngwin), yet you talk about it as if there's something wrong |
| 18 |
> with it. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> And while we're at it, do DEPEND="$RDEPEND ..." style solutions have the |
| 21 |
> same problems (or lack thereof)? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
The problem appears as we introduce more DEPEND variables (which is what |
| 24 |
prompted the proposal, IIRC). If we have ADEPEND, BDEPEND, CDEPEND, and |
| 25 |
DDEPEND, and there's only some (i.e. not total) sharing going on then |
| 26 |
the COMMON_DEPEND pattern starts to fall apart. You potentially need, |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
AB_DEPEND |
| 29 |
AC_DEPEND |
| 30 |
AD_DEPEND |
| 31 |
BC_DEPEND |
| 32 |
BD_DEPEND |
| 33 |
CD_DEPEND |
| 34 |
ABC_DEPEND |
| 35 |
ABD_DEPEND |
| 36 |
ACD_DEPEND |
| 37 |
BCD_DEPEND |
| 38 |
ABCD_DEPEND (COMMON_DEPEND) |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
This obviously gets worse as more DEPEND vars are introduced. |
Archives