| 1 |
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 07:36:31AM -0500, Caleb Tennis wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Monday 08 August 2005 08:14 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 3 |
> > If you could bring up some specific examples, we could discuss them. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Sure. Qt has optional support for xkb, tablet, fontconfig, xrender, xrandr, |
| 6 |
> xcursor, xinerama (already a use flag), xshape, and xsm. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I'd really hate to add 8 more use flags for those things. I find it fairly |
| 9 |
> hard to believe that a user would want to, for example, configre xrender and |
| 10 |
> xcursor but not xrandr. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> My *thought* here is why not let the Qt ebuild rely on the base packages of X, |
| 13 |
> and if these other packages are also installed ahead of time, then configure |
| 14 |
> support for them as well, but don't make them use flag deps. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Something like: |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> if xcursor is installed |
| 19 |
> turn on xcursor support |
| 20 |
> DEPEND+=xcursor |
| 21 |
> fi |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> I'm sure someone will cast me as a heretic, but I think this is much more |
| 24 |
> elegant than 8 more use flags. |
| 25 |
Yep, you're a heretic. :) |
| 26 |
How would you propose that DEPEND information make it's way up the |
| 27 |
portage stack, and ultimately affects the depgraph? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
What you're suggesting is effectively "suggested" deps, which are a |
| 30 |
bit backwards considering we have "optional" deps, the 8 flags you |
| 31 |
dislike :) |
| 32 |
~harring |
Archives