| 1 |
On Friday 23 February 2007 06:18, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:05:56 +0100 Thomas de Grenier de Latour |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> <degrenier@×××××××××××.fr> wrote: |
| 5 |
> | On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:08:48 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh |
| 6 |
> | |
| 7 |
> | <ciaranm@×××××××.org> wrote: |
| 8 |
> | > As has been discussed in the past, the only correct way of handling |
| 9 |
> | > this from an ebuild perspective is lots of use && has_version calls |
| 10 |
> | |
| 11 |
> | Which sounds like trying to mimic whatever the deps solver logic may |
| 12 |
> | have been, no? So, why not just let the dep solver itself give the |
| 13 |
> | right answer to the ebuild? It could well set a resolved DEPEND |
| 14 |
> | variable (lets call it $RESOLVED_DEPEND for instance) in the ebuild |
| 15 |
> | env, that one could query with some helper functions. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
This is the best solution that I could come up with in the past as well. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> That strikes me as another large complication. Something that |
| 20 |
> complicated shouldn't be necessary. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Also, I'd like an EAPI-0-able solution :) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Disallowing it would be the cleaner in terms of package manager |
| 25 |
responsibilities, but ... |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> | > So, is there a legitimate reason for this complication to exist? Or |
| 28 |
> | > should use? blocks being direct children of || ( ) be forbidden? |
| 29 |
> | |
| 30 |
> | It's not clear to me what would be your prefered DEPEND syntax for the |
| 31 |
> | ebuild(5) example you've quoted. Something like this maybe?: |
| 32 |
> | sdl? ( media-libs/libsdl ) |
| 33 |
> | !sdl? ( |
| 34 |
> | svga? ( media-libs/svgalib ) |
| 35 |
> | !svga? ( |
| 36 |
> | ... |
| 37 |
> | |
| 38 |
> | (which is not really equivalent) |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> Right. It's not the same, but it's a lot more logical. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
the above code - while likely to be what the ebuild author was originally |
| 43 |
intending when using the "|| ( use? () )" - is not very readable or |
| 44 |
maintainable. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
There's also one other issue that you didn't mention in your original email. |
| 47 |
If an ebuild has "|| ( foo? ( foo/pkg ) bar? ( bar/pkg ) )" and neither foo |
| 48 |
or bar are set, should it be an error because there was no successful result |
| 49 |
among the possibilities? While my gut feeling says "yes" and (I think) |
| 50 |
portage currently says "no", I can't really see any strong reason for either |
| 51 |
case. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
Disallowing use clauses directly beneath || constructs would completely |
| 54 |
sidestep that issue too. ;) |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
But I still what TGL described even if only for EAPI-1 or beyond... |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
-- |
| 59 |
Jason Stubbs |
| 60 |
-- |
| 61 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives