On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:05:56 +0100 Thomas de Grenier de Latour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:08:48 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > As has been discussed in the past, the only correct way of handling | > this from an ebuild perspective is lots of use && has_version calls | | Which sounds like trying to mimic whatever the deps solver logic may | have been, no? So, why not just let the dep solver itself give the | right answer to the ebuild? It could well set a resolved DEPEND | variable (lets call it $RESOLVED_DEPEND for instance) in the ebuild | env, that one could query with some helper functions.
That strikes me as another large complication. Something that complicated shouldn't be necessary. Also, I'd like an EAPI-0-able solution :) | > So, is there a legitimate reason for this complication to exist? Or | > should use? blocks being direct children of || ( ) be forbidden? | | It's not clear to me what would be your prefered DEPEND syntax for the | ebuild(5) example you've quoted. Something like this maybe?: | sdl? ( media-libs/libsdl ) | !sdl? ( | svga? ( media-libs/svgalib ) | !svga? ( | ... | | (which is not really equivalent) Right. It's not the same, but it's a lot more logical. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail : ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
