>>>>> On Mon, 4 Aug 2014, Michał Górny wrote: > Reasonable. However, as I see it, we'll end up having up to four > different operators:
> - || that is deprecated yet everyone will still use it (like they don't > use :* right now), > - ||* that will be used scarcely, > - <<= that would be the preferred variant for compile-time switches yet > many people will not use it because it has different characters than > '||' [we could try maybe '||<' so that people will still see it as > replacement for '||'], > - ||= that most people would use forgetting about '<<=' [or '||<']. No, we will have only two distinct operators, namely ||* and ||=. Alternatively, or in addition, || could be kept but would be identical to ||*. > So, banning '|| ( A:= B:= )' in a future EAPI sounds reasonable. What prevents us from banning it now, by adding a repoman check? The || ( A:= B:= ) construct would mean that you can switch from provider A to provider B and back to A. Nothing would prevent you from choosing a different slot in the second step, which renders the := operator meaningless. > However, there's still the matter of setting current Portage behavior > because I don't we should keep the non-predictable magic. > What should be the current behavior then? Should we assume that all > '||' are not well-defined and need to be compile-switchable? Or try to > invent heuristic like I suggested? The devmanual [1] is very clear about it. || ( ) is only allowed if the implementation can be switched at runtime: # * fnord is merged on a system which has foo and not bar installed. # foo is then unmerged, and bar is installed. fnord must continue to # work correctly. # * A binary package of fnord made on a system with foo and not bar # can be taken and installed on a system with bar and not foo. Ulrich [1] http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/dependencies/index.html
pgptgMlbrYe0r.pgp
Description: PGP signature
