| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 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 |
|
| 11 |
Okay, so the only difference from package.use format is that whitespace is replaced by square brackets and commas? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
>> Is the existing format of of use.mask bad? What about package.use? The implementation that I've proposed is a combination of these two formats that everyone is already familiar with. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> No... the issue is that this _is_ basically a crappy form of |
| 16 |
> package.mask supporting use-deps; why use an alt syntax for it then? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Well, no part of portage currently supports use-deps. Therefore, use-deps are an alternate syntax in themselves. The implementation that I've proposed uses the same type of syntax that portage already uses in package.use files. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> Just use what was originally intended, and at some point down the line |
| 21 |
> when either portage grows use deps, or it gets replaced, folks can |
| 22 |
> just copy the package.use.mask into package.mask, and wipe the file. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> ~harring |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Such a migration (if it ever takes place) could just as well be performed by a simple conversion tool. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Zac |
| 29 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 30 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
iD8DBQFE1BSY/ejvha5XGaMRAlc+AJ4ynGsdiXlsU45d86GV9g4FxpjNPwCgyn9n |
| 33 |
yaeio9p0pL28GdmfjGTOdyM= |
| 34 |
=uqJq |
| 35 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives