| 1 |
On Sep 27, 2005, at 8:44 AM, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Tuesday 27 September 2005 14:51, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 4 |
>> Variables are _not_ fine. I would think it should be clear to |
| 5 |
>> everybody by |
| 6 |
>> now that ebuilds can not pick random things from the computer they |
| 7 |
>> are |
| 8 |
>> installing on to define how they will build. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I still think that to users it shouldn't give a damn about ELIBC, |
| 11 |
> USERLAND and |
| 12 |
> KERNEL, as they can just be mislead by thinking that they can |
| 13 |
> change anything |
| 14 |
> about that.. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> How we can test for and condition dependencies with special |
| 17 |
> profiles others |
| 18 |
> than this way? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
[Portage devs please don't throw rocks at me] |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
My impression of the userland, elibc, and kernel use expanded vars is |
| 23 |
it was a quick way to sidestep some of the issues with GLEP22... it |
| 24 |
would seem the full keywords have still not been taken advantage of. |
| 25 |
From the ebuild perspective, if the profile has a keyword of x86- |
| 26 |
fbsd-bsd-fbsd, there is no clean way to just do a conditional based |
| 27 |
on a 'Keyword Fragment' as there are obviously namespace collisions. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Ideal to me would be syntax something like: |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
kernel !fbsd && foo |
| 32 |
libc glibc || bar |
| 33 |
userland darwin && boof |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Probably not feasible, but seems the cleanest in the context of |
| 37 |
ebuilds IMHO. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
--Kito |
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives