Re: [gentoo-user] What's the deal with CAMERAS anyway?

[Arttu V.]

On 5/4/09, Paul Hartman <paul.hartman+gentoo@×××××.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 6:43 AM, Arttu V. <arttuv69@×××××.com> wrote:
>> Anyone got a clue why *not* setting CAMERAS won't build drivers for
>> all cameras as claimed several times in the libgphoto2 ebuild?
>
> src_configure() in the libgphoto2 ebuild looks like it handles the
> none=all logic.

That was the same part I glimpsed over earlier in wonder, and the
ebuild didn't really answer my question as it doesn't even touch the
CAMERAS variable (only the local lower case "cameras" and also
"IUSE_CAMERAS").

But after a fair bit of grepping around portage's sources I have now
come up with a theory that satisfies my curiosity for now. I think the
problem is my poor brain not understanding the somewhat misleading
printout from emerge -p libgphoto2. It has a minus sign in front of
all CAMERAS drivers listed, so trying to be logical I assumed it
wouldn't emerge any of them.

emerge -p lirc does something similar with LIRC_DEVICES. It is another
example of these USE_EXPANDed (learned a new word of gentoo-eeze while
grepping :) ) variables, *does* show the string "all" amongst its list
of LIRC_DEVICES while the actual device driver names are also still
preceded by minuses.

But now I've found out that that's just due to "all" being an extra
option specifically listed in /usr/portage/desc/lirc_devices.desc.
/usr/portage/desc/cameras.desc doesn't have such an "all" line, so
emerge won't print "all" for CAMERAS, only all the drivers' names with
minuses in front. Ergo, my confusion follows from the premises?

Sorry about the confusion and thanks for the replies. But is this a
bug or a feature? Am I the only one who has fallen for this?

-- 
Arttu V.