On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 07:21:55AM -0500, Chris Dolan wrote: > On May 6, 2005, at 4:07 AM, Daniel Macks wrote: > > >Any thoughts about a syntax like: > > > > License: (cond1) Lic1, (cond2) Lic2, ..., (condN) LicN, LicX > > > >where cond* are each usual condional syntax and Lic* are each standard > >License types? The result is the Lic of the first true cond > >encountered in the list. [...] For example: > > > > Package: foo-%type_raw[crypto] > > Type: crypto (ssl tls) > > License: (%type_raw[crypto] = ssl) Restrctive, GPL > > > >for a program "foo" that can use different crypto back-ends and whose > >own program is GPL would apply Restrictive to foo-ssl but GPL to the > >other variant. > > That looks nice to me. However, for consistency with the Depends field > and the like, could the condition be after the license?
I think I've been quite consistent putting the conditional expression *before* the thing the conditional controls. Depends: (%type_pkg[perl] < 581) time-hires-pm (>= 1.50-1) ConfigureParams: (%type_pkg[ssl]) --with-ssl Note that the versioning requirement of time-hires-pm is not a condition of that package being included as a dependency, but rather is a detail of the dependency (an always-present modifier of the packagename). dan -- Daniel Macks [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netspace.org/~dmacks ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: NEC IT Guy Games. Get your fingers limbered up and give it your best shot. 4 great events, 4 opportunities to win big! Highest score wins.NEC IT Guy Games. Play to win an NEC 61 plasma display. Visit http://www.necitguy.com/?r=20 _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
