Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 13:24:11
Message-Id: 200601262209.35514.jstubbs@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X by Brian Harring
1 On Thursday 26 January 2006 20:56, Brian Harring wrote:
2 > Patch misses on
3 > || ( virtual/x11 )
4
5 A theoretical case, but if you want to cover it...
6
7 > || ( x86? ( virtual/x11 ) b )
8 > via the latter, kind of guranteed it's going to miss on
9
10 It's not a "miss" per se as much as other dependency checks that aren't
11 performed are a miss when there is invalid syntax - which prevents a commit
12 anyway. If you make "b" a proper atom that specifies a category it'll be
13 picked up.
14
15 > || ( x86? ( valid-dep ) virtual/x11 )
16
17 There is no way that I can see around this without highly increasing the
18 possibility of false positives. Are you planning to treat arch flags
19 separately?
20
21 --
22 Jason Stubbs
23 --
24 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o>