| 1 |
On 09/08/2012 02:43 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 18:55:10 -0400 Michael Orlitzky |
| 3 |
> <michael@××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> I think that dependencies are ultimately not hierarchical |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Situations like foo? ( bar? ( || ( a ( b c ) ) ) ) do happen, so |
| 7 |
> any new syntax would have to be able to deal with that. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
The deps in both cases are just a collection of atom/type pairs, so |
| 11 |
anything possible in one must be possible in the other. I think this |
| 12 |
means, if USE=bar, then we need either a or (b and c)? It could be |
| 13 |
written, |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
|| ( |
| 16 |
a: bar? ( build run ) |
| 17 |
b,c: bar? ( build run ) |
| 18 |
) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Or if we wanted to make it even easier, allow the USE conditional at |
| 21 |
the top level like we do now: |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
bar? ( || ( |
| 24 |
a: ( build run ) |
| 25 |
b,c: ( build run ) |
| 26 |
)) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I'm just wondering if it wouldn't be nicer to think in terms of |
| 29 |
package atoms instead of the dependency types. Right now, we've got |
| 30 |
buckets named DEPEND, RDEPEND, etc. and we put the package atoms in |
| 31 |
those buckets. The above syntax would make the package atoms the |
| 32 |
buckets, and we would be putting the dependency types into the buckets |
| 33 |
instead. |
Archives