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 |
It's fairly dep specific; that's effectivelly foo|bar when you think |
16 |
about it; it multiplies out to dep:foo? ( that block ) dep:bar? ( that |
17 |
block ) in a dumb PM (smarter one just leaves the tree collapsed and |
18 |
filters as it goes). |
19 |
|
20 |
Phrased another way, I'm not sure we really need shorthand for the |
21 |
following: |
22 |
|
23 |
x? ( blah ) |
24 |
y? ( blah ) |
25 |
z? ( blah ) |
26 |
|
27 |
into |
28 |
x,y,z? ( blah ) |
29 |
|
30 |
It's a rare case; I could only foresee that potentially being of use |
31 |
for arch flags; ie, amd64,x86? ( blah ); which I'd write as |
32 |
"arch:amd64,x86? ( blah )" personally since I don't like the notion of |
33 |
introducing ',' into raw, non use group flags. |
34 |
|
35 |
That said, I don't hugely care; people think it's useful, then have at |
36 |
it. |
37 |
~harring |