| 1 |
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 10:30:09PM +0100, Carsten Lohrke wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Friday 23 December 2005 21:45, Spider (DmD Lj) wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Erm.. No, I don't think he is. We've been asking / waiting for the |
| 4 |
> > [use] syntax to appear since before you joined the project. It's been on |
| 5 |
> > "the list" for so long that many of us have given up... ; ) |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> He - and I thought I just missed the thread between all those emails in my |
| 8 |
> inbox. I'm interested as well to hear a bit about the proposed enhanced |
| 9 |
> dependency syntax. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
dev-lang/python[tcltk] |
| 12 |
^^^ need that atom resolved with use flag tcltk enabled |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
>=sys-apps/portage-2.0[sandbox,!build] |
| 15 |
^^^ need >=portage-2.0 merged with sandbox on, build off. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
kde-libs/kde:3 |
| 18 |
^^^ need any kde, with slotting enabled. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
kde-libs/kde:3,4 |
| 21 |
^^^ need any kde, slotting 3 or 4. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Combination? Not set in stone afaik, the implementation I have |
| 24 |
sitting in saviour doesn't care about the ordering however. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> > (finally we can kill use_with !! ) |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> Why? There're not only autotooled configure scripts, so I don't see how to |
| 30 |
> replace it in a generic way. I don't see what this would have to do with |
| 31 |
> depending on ( ebuild foo without use flag bar ), either. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
assume he meant built_with_use |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
~harring |
Archives