On 5/4/07, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 04 May 2007, Hisham Muhammad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 5/3/07, Michael Homer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Dependency files are still a complication though, unless they're
> >> changed into a shell-sourceable format. Ideally it would be compatible
> >> with existing files though, so I guess that means using a comment. "#
> >> :gtk" for "when gtk is enabled"? That would let actual comments still
> >> exist, if they're useful to have.
> >
> > Dependency files are currently parsed by Python code and it already
> > uses a custom syntax (with operators, etc.) -- extending it to put
> > flag information, annotation such as "optional", etc., is doable.
Yes, enhancements at the dependencies file format can be easily dealt with.
> optional/recommended/required is really needed. And the idea of adding
> options/changing status of a dependency depending on flags is a good idea,
> the question is how to implement it. Perhaps 'optional :with_gtk' to have
> it enabled when 'with_gtk' is used, or even more fine grained: 'optional
> with_openssl:recommended with_gnutls:disabled' to have different status
> depending on different flags.
I'm in favor of trying to keep things, as much as possible, similar to
existing approaches. Namelly, unless we have strong reasons not to do
so, I think we can use Gentoo's format.
>=media-libs/libpng-1.2.1
jpeg? ( >=media-libs/jpeg-6b-r2 )
tiff? ( >=media-libs/tiff-3.5.7 )
After all, they have the most functional scheme for optional
dependencies out there.
--
Andre Detsch
_______________________________________________
gobolinux-devel mailing list
gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org
http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
