| 1 |
On Sun, Aug 06, 2006 at 02:54:36AM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 2 |
> Brian Harring wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 08:46:34PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> Brian Harring wrote: |
| 5 |
> >>> On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 12:38:39PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 6 |
> >>>> I haven't seen a specification for use dependencies yet, so I'm not quite sure how they'd work. |
| 7 |
> >>> cat/pkg-ver[use1,use2,-use3,use4] |
| 8 |
> >>> cat/pkg-ver[use] |
| 9 |
> >>> etc. |
| 10 |
> >> Okay, so the only difference from package.use format is that whitespace is replaced by square brackets and commas? |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > Yep- bracket/comma usage allows the atom and use reqs to bundled as |
| 13 |
> > one token. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Isn't there more of a difference than just in the parsing? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Not for what I'm suggesting- I'm suggesting just using use dep syntax |
| 18 |
for package.use.mask. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
You've already got the code for the masking in your patch now, all you |
| 21 |
have to do is just change the parsing a bit. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> It |
| 24 |
> seems to me that we'd also have to implement use-dep matching in |
| 25 |
> order to correctly support use-dep syntax. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
If you were actually supporting use deps, yes. You're not |
| 28 |
however- package.use.mask is just a kludge in the (hopefully short) |
| 29 |
interim. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I'm suggesting that you think a bit forward- use use-dep syntax for it |
| 32 |
now rather then having to change it down the line. |
| 33 |
~harring |
Archives