Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com>
To: Micha?? G??rny <mgorny@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-dev@l.g.o, gentoo-pms@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-pms] Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 10:34:02
Message-Id: 20120926103312.GH26094@localhost
In Reply to: [gentoo-pms] Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal by "Michał Górny"
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