1 |
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 08:58:54AM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote: |
2 |
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 06:52:11 -0700 |
3 |
> Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
> > Keeping it short and quick, a basic glep has been written for what I'm |
6 |
> > proposing for DEPENDENCIES enhancement. |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > The live version of the doc is available at |
9 |
> > http://dev.gentoo.org/~ferringb/unified-dependencies/extensible_dependencies.html |
10 |
> |
11 |
> One more question -- are we going to keep 'foo,bar?' syntax as |
12 |
> a special case applying only to dependency atoms or are we going to |
13 |
> extend it to USE flags? |
14 |
|
15 |
Note that's dep:foo,bar; not a bare "allow any use flags to be OR'd |
16 |
together". In light of the fact it *is* just an expansion hack, the |
17 |
usage is semi limited although there are scenarios for it; arches, |
18 |
namely (if amd64 or x86, use this, if mips, that, etc). |
19 |
|
20 |
I have no preference either way; extending it outside of dep isn't |
21 |
necessary if people hate it, although as said, there are some |
22 |
potential uses for it. |
23 |
|
24 |
That said, if we were to start using it, the ',' as an 'or' operator |
25 |
mildly sucks; dep:build|run also sucks (hard to read), and |
26 |
dep:build+run, to me at least, implies 'and'. And yep, bikeshedding |
27 |
potential there. |
28 |
|
29 |
~harrin |