| 1 |
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 12:57:25 -0400 |
| 2 |
Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 5 |
> Hash: SHA256 |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> On 12/08/15 12:42 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 8 |
> > On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
| 9 |
> >> 2 - is there a particular reasoning for the - in front of qt4 |
| 10 |
> >> here? I only ask because it would seem that a single |
| 11 |
> >> default-enable should suffice in lists like this to indicate a |
| 12 |
> >> resolution path, no? That is, '^^ ( +flag1 -flag2 -flag3 -flag4 |
| 13 |
> >> )' to me seems like it would be the same as '^^ ( +flag1 flag2 |
| 14 |
> >> flag3 flag4 )' |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > If the user has both "qt4 qt5", then enabling qt5 alone won't |
| 17 |
> > help to resolve "^^ ( qt5 qt4 )". |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Right, but the PM knows based on a particular REQUIRED_USE operator |
| 21 |
> what it would need to do when a particular flag is set to default. |
| 22 |
> Given '^^' is must-be-one-of, the +flag would be enabled and all the |
| 23 |
> other flags would be disabled, right? |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Here's how I'd see it mapping out: |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> || ( +flag1 flag2 ... ) , PM only forces-on flag1 |
| 28 |
> ^^ ( +flag1 flag2 ... ) , PM forces-on flag1, forces-off all others |
| 29 |
> ?? ( +flag2 flag2 ... ) , PM forces off all but flag1 |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> I'm not sure if the following make sense though... thoughts? |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> {,!}flag1? ( +flag2 ) , PM forces-on flag2 |
| 34 |
> {,!}flag1? ( +!flag2 ) , PM forces !flag2, meaning forces-off flag2 |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> I'm just wondering if it's really necessary in terms of syntax to |
| 38 |
> specify the flag-negation that the PM would need to do. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
See my other email: neither + nor - are necessary :) |
Archives