-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 12/08/15 12:42 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>> 2 - is there a particular reasoning for the - in front of qt4
>> here? I only ask because it would seem that a single
>> default-enable should suffice in lists like this to indicate a
>> resolution path, no? That is, '^^ ( +flag1 -flag2 -flag3 -flag4
>> )' to me seems like it would be the same as '^^ ( +flag1 flag2
>> flag3 flag4 )'
>
> If the user has both "qt4 qt5", then enabling qt5 alone won't
> help to resolve "^^ ( qt5 qt4 )".
>
Right, but the PM knows based on a particular REQUIRED_USE operator
what it would need to do when a particular flag is set to default.
Given '^^' is must-be-one-of, the +flag would be enabled and all the
other flags would be disabled, right?
Here's how I'd see it mapping out:
|| ( +flag1 flag2 ... ) , PM only forces-on flag1
^^ ( +flag1 flag2 ... ) , PM forces-on flag1, forces-off all others
?? ( +flag2 flag2 ... ) , PM forces off all but flag1
I'm not sure if the following make sense though... thoughts?
{,!}flag1? ( +flag2 ) , PM forces-on flag2
{,!}flag1? ( +!flag2 ) , PM forces !flag2, meaning forces-off flag2
I'm just wondering if it's really necessary in terms of syntax to
specify the flag-negation that the PM would need to do.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
iF4EAREIAAYFAlXLevUACgkQAJxUfCtlWe2egAD+K8DCAD4UfqR3A6GKNBcSzIL9
9NaJrt8TX/LRl3uSP8MBAJjwh5ybmY42dEe3lTBlHhlAv7entRSdzKM6tmwB26WW
=scA5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
