The topic is about how to handle with_foo for a with_foo_bar option that only makes sense in concert with with_foo.
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2007, Christoph Schug wrote: > > For me, it looks more like the second [implicit] case, but I might be > wrong. If not, there should be some fiddling in the "fixing implicit > extension dependencies and correlations" section, right? > I remember the "implicit dependency" issue but wasn't sure what the best practice is to make clear to the user that with_imap_annotate implies with_imap. My ideas were: - use "if with_foo || with_foo_bar" in the "with_foo" logic this will build with_foo if only with_foo_bar is given but "rpm -qi" will show up with_foo=no. Bad - implicitly set "with_foo=yes" when the user chooses "with_foo_bar" AFAIK the current practice. Build and query ok, but somewhat magic. - make the package require itself, enforcing an explicit setting Something like "if with_foo_bar then require self::with_foo=yes" If the latter works, I'd prefer it. Never tested it. -- http://thomas.lotterer.net ______________________________________________________________________ OpenPKG http://openpkg.org Developer Communication List openpkg-dev@openpkg.org
