| 1 |
On 6/16/05, Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 18:01 +0300, Alin Dobre wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Jonathan Smith wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > The desktop-misc herd (which was sadly neglected until recently) could |
| 5 |
> > > benefit from a new virtual. x11-misc/xautolock is a wrapper which locks |
| 6 |
> > > the screen via any appropriate program such as xlockmore or xtrlock. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > xscreensaver locks the screen, too, besides its normal screensaver |
| 9 |
> > features (like xlockmore). |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > > This program needs to depend on an xlocker, but we should not lock users |
| 12 |
> > > into one specific one. |
| 13 |
> > > |
| 14 |
> > > See bug 95246 [1] |
| 15 |
> > > |
| 16 |
> > > I would probably name it virtual/xlocker, but other suggestions are, of |
| 17 |
> > > course, welcome. |
| 18 |
> > > |
| 19 |
> > > Thanks |
| 20 |
> > > |
| 21 |
> > > [1]: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=95246 |
| 22 |
> > > |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> You don't have to setup a virtual for this. In fact, the simpler method |
| 25 |
> (especially when dealing with only one package) is to use the || *DEPEND |
| 26 |
> syntax. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> RDEPEND="|| ( |
| 29 |
> x11-misc/xscreensaver |
| 30 |
> x11-misc/xlockmore |
| 31 |
> x11-misc/xtrlock )" |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> This would prefer xscreensaver over the others, but any would satisfy |
| 34 |
> the dependency. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Hi guys, |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
thanks for you to look of my reply on this bug :) |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
It don't think that a virtual need to be use here. 3 softwares for a |
| 41 |
virtual is quite less. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Why are you placing a REDEPEND instead of a PDEPEND ? |
| 44 |
xautolock *doesn't need* on of theses software to compile. It need one |
| 45 |
of them to be usable. Is the side, it's a post depend. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
++ |
| 48 |
Beber |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
-- |
| 51 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives