| 1 |
On Friday 01 July 2005 23:19, Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Friday 01 July 2005 17:14, Jonathan Smith wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > Btw, what's wrong with the `DEPEND="$(your_function)" || die` |
| 5 |
> > > |
| 6 |
> > > i've proposed? Using a return code seems to be the simplest way |
| 7 |
> > > to signal a failure, no? |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > calling a function in a global scope is a bad idea. it leads to lots of |
| 10 |
> > unneccessary (and timely) computations |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> It also makes any attempts to parse ebuilds without using bash (our current |
| 13 |
> strategy) a lot harder (actually causing bash reimplementation) |
| 14 |
You mean you're actually doing that for portage-cvs? I didn't know that. Does |
| 15 |
'our current strategy' refer to using bash or to not using it? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Anyway, as far as portage goes, if we had version range deps support we |
| 18 |
wouldn't need functions in $DEPEND. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Dan Armak |
| 22 |
Gentoo Linux developer (KDE) |
| 23 |
Public GPG key: http://dev.gentoo.org/~danarmak/danarmak-gpg-public.key |
| 24 |
Fingerprint: DD70 DBF9 E3D4 6CB9 2FDD 0069 508D 9143 8D5F 8951 |
Archives