1 |
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 00:13:39 -0800 |
2 |
Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> > PDEPEND=" |
4 |
> > ppds? ( || ( |
5 |
> > ( |
6 |
> > net-print/foomatic-filters-ppds |
7 |
> > net-print/foomatic-db-ppds |
8 |
> > ) |
9 |
> > net-print/foomatic-filters-ppds |
10 |
> > net-print/foomatic-db-ppds |
11 |
> > net-print/hplip |
12 |
> > media-gfx/gimp-print |
13 |
> > net-print/foo2zjs |
14 |
> > net-print/cups-pdf |
15 |
> > ) ) |
16 |
> |
17 |
> I'm not sure I understand this dep. Either these two packages, or |
18 |
> these two packages and a lot more? When would the second one ever |
19 |
> happen? |
20 |
|
21 |
Looks like it's a silly hack that relies upon the resolver taking the |
22 |
first available option if nothing's installed. So if the user already |
23 |
has any one of the listed packages, it does nothing, otherwise it |
24 |
installs the two in their own block. |
25 |
|
26 |
Which is rather perverse, and doesn't have the desired effect anyway, |
27 |
since one of the listed options could well be pulled in as an earlier |
28 |
dep anyway, in which case the pair wouldn't be chosen even if the user |
29 |
previously had none of those packages. |
30 |
|
31 |
-- |
32 |
Ciaran McCreesh |