Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] PROPERTIES=set for meta-packages that should behave like package sets
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 06:43:21
Message-Id: 20081004004233.0afd3732@halo.dirtyepic.sk.ca
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] PROPERTIES=set for meta-packages that should behave like package sets by Ryan Hill
1 On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 00:05:53 -0600
2 Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o> wrote:
3
4 > On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 02:51:53 +0000
5 > "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@g.o> wrote:
6
7 > > Ryan, I disagree with your proposal. If I enable a use flag for the
8 > > "meta" @kde and also disable it for @kdenetwork, I don't expect my
9 > > option for the @kde "meta" to override my option for @kdenetwork.
10 > > As Zac proposed, an incremental stack makes more sense. Before we
11 > > had sets, when we enabled a use flag for a meta and disabled it for
12 > > an ebuild pulled by the meta, we never expected the option for the
13 > > ebuild to be overridden by the option for the meta.
14
15 > Yes, that's what I said. ;)
16 >
17 > The nested set's flags (@kde-network) override the parent set's flags
18 > (@kde).
19
20 Though I'm still not sure what happens when a package is in two
21 unrelated sets..
22
23 @gnome:
24 RDEPEND=">=gnome-extra/gnome-screensaver-2.22.2"
25
26 @xfce4:
27 RDEPEND="gnome-extra/gnome-screensaver"
28
29 package.use:
30 @gnome opengl
31 @xfce -opengl
32
33
34 --
35 gcc-porting, by design, by neglect
36 treecleaner, for a fact or just for effect
37 wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies