On Sunday 15 Jun 2014 19:27:18 Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Alan McKinnon <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm at a loss to explain why this is a good idea or desirable: > > > > !!! The ebuild selected to satisfy > > ">=net-libs/gupnp-0.18[abi_x86_32(-)?,abi_x86_64(-)?,abi_x86_x32(-)?,abi_ > > mips_n32(-)?,abi_mips_n64(-)?,abi_mips_o32(-)?]" has unmet requirements. > > - net-libs/gupnp-0.20.12-r1::gentoo USE="introspection -connman > > -networkmanager" ABI_X86="64 -32 -x32" PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7 > > -python2_6" > > > > The following REQUIRED_USE flag constraints are unsatisfied: > > exactly-one-of ( connman networkmanager ) > > > > USE="upnp" is pulling this in, the major user of that flag here is > > farstream. > > > > Maybe I want farstream. Maybe I want upnp for it. > > Maybe I don't care for connman or networkmanager (I use wicd, some users > > want no nw manager at all) > > > > So, what is the sense behind a feature of an instant messenger framework > > causing me to decide between two undesirable connection managers? > > > > Anyone see some valid logic that I miss? > > I'm pretty sure this was a simple developer error. > > REQUIRED_USE="^^ ( connman networkmanager )" should have been > REQUIRED_USE="?? ( connman networkmanager )". > > The former requires that exactly one flag be enabled. The latter > requires that at most one flag may be enabled.
Why "at most one flag may be enabled"? What if *both* connman and networkmanager are installed in a system? Will emerge error out? -- Regards, Mick
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
