| 1 |
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 08:27:22PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wednesday 25 January 2006 18:10, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > DEPEND="x11-base/xorg-x11" # wrong |
| 5 |
> > > DEPEND="virtual/x11" # wrong |
| 6 |
> > > DEPEND="|| ( x11? ( virtual/x11 ) )" # wrong |
| 7 |
> > > DEPEND="|| ( misc/atoms virtual/x11 )" # right |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > > There's a small possibility that broken packages will be missed by this, |
| 10 |
> > > but is there any chance that valid packages will be incorrectly flagged? |
| 11 |
> > > If this gets a go-ahead, it'll be easy enough to get in for the next |
| 12 |
> > > release (which is likely this coming Saturday). |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > It sounds right. There should be no valid instance of virtual/x11 that |
| 15 |
> > is not within an || dep. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> I've implemented and tested the check locally but haven't committed it yet. |
| 18 |
> Repoman isn't really structured to allow for tests against a set of ebuilds |
| 19 |
> so the checks are done on every version. There is also definitely one false |
| 20 |
> positive (virtual/x11-6.8) so, for this and the fact that every version is |
| 21 |
> tested, it would probably better to just make it a warning. Thoughts? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Curious about the mechanism you're using for this... a hardcoded set |
| 24 |
of atoms in repoman doesn't sound very nice to me ;) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
~harring |
Archives