| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 12/08/15 01:52 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:39:21 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius |
| 6 |
> <axs@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> ...OR we could just adjust PMS to assume flag order determines |
| 9 |
>> precedence and still not bother with a new operator: For "^^ ( |
| 10 |
>> a b c )" if a then b,c forced-off; elif b then c forced-off; |
| 11 |
>> elif !c then a forced-on; fi |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> that's another possible option indeed |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Is this something that we would need to change PMS for? Syntax |
| 17 |
stays the same, just the way portage (in particular here) acts on it |
| 18 |
would be different... For testing, is what I'm thinking, say tied |
| 19 |
to a "resolve-required-use" feature? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
If we don't -need- to change PMS we could just -do- this and see if |
| 22 |
it works. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 26 |
Version: GnuPG v2 |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlXLkhwACgkQAJxUfCtlWe2icgD/fvbn2O70mE2QJs5+mOfxwZEx |
| 29 |
Y6huevd2KkJnaEHmlPEBAOvLe3gLDR/KUgvQVytBAXxgu+XsDcN/SDZEt94K0ptE |
| 30 |
=ySbZ |
| 31 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives