| 1 |
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> I'm at a loss to explain why this is a good idea or desirable: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> !!! The ebuild selected to satisfy |
| 5 |
> ">=net-libs/gupnp-0.18[abi_x86_32(-)?,abi_x86_64(-)?,abi_x86_x32(-)?,abi_mips_n32(-)?,abi_mips_n64(-)?,abi_mips_o32(-)?]" |
| 6 |
> has unmet requirements. |
| 7 |
> - net-libs/gupnp-0.20.12-r1::gentoo USE="introspection -connman |
| 8 |
> -networkmanager" ABI_X86="64 -32 -x32" PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7 -python2_6" |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> The following REQUIRED_USE flag constraints are unsatisfied: |
| 11 |
> exactly-one-of ( connman networkmanager ) |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> USE="upnp" is pulling this in, the major user of that flag here is |
| 16 |
> farstream. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Maybe I want farstream. Maybe I want upnp for it. |
| 19 |
> Maybe I don't care for connman or networkmanager (I use wicd, some users |
| 20 |
> want no nw manager at all) |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> So, what is the sense behind a feature of an instant messenger framework |
| 23 |
> causing me to decide between two undesirable connection managers? |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Anyone see some valid logic that I miss? |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I'm pretty sure this was a simple developer error. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
REQUIRED_USE="^^ ( connman networkmanager )" should have been |
| 31 |
REQUIRED_USE="?? ( connman networkmanager )". |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
The former requires that exactly one flag be enabled. The latter |
| 34 |
requires that at most one flag may be enabled. |
Archives