| 1 |
On Wed, 31 May 2017 09:54:56 +0200 |
| 2 |
Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Wed, 31 May 2017 08:51:33 +0100 |
| 5 |
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > On Wed, 31 May 2017 09:35:04 +0200 |
| 8 |
> > Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 9 |
> > > On śro, 2017-05-31 at 08:24 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 10 |
> > > > On Wed, 31 May 2017 08:55:17 +0200 |
| 11 |
> > > > Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 12 |
> > > > > For example: |
| 13 |
> > > > > |
| 14 |
> > > > > foo? ( bar ) |
| 15 |
> > > > > |
| 16 |
> > > > > would mean 'if you have USE=foo, then USE=bar is enabled as |
| 17 |
> > > > > well'. |
| 18 |
> > > > |
| 19 |
> > > > What about "if bar cannot be enabled, then turn foo off"? |
| 20 |
> > > |
| 21 |
> > > Not expressible. The best you can do is 'if bar is |
| 22 |
> > > disabled, ...' |
| 23 |
> > |
| 24 |
> > This is the kind of thing that gets very messy when a user wants ssl |
| 25 |
> > enabled, and has to enable either openssl or libressl, and they're |
| 26 |
> > on a profile where openssl is masked but the ebuild writer prefers |
| 27 |
> > that option... |
| 28 |
> > |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> ssl? ( ^^ ( openssl libressl ) ) with openssl masked will be reduced |
| 31 |
> to 'ssl? ( libressl )' so all good here. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Note: that's also an argument for applying user input before trying to |
| 35 |
solve anything. At the very least masks. |
Archives