On Wed, Jul 11, 2007, Thomas Lotterer wrote: > 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.
As I think RPM will not allow the latter, just use the second one. This is what we already have in a bunch of similar packages. Ralf S. Engelschall [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.engelschall.com ______________________________________________________________________ OpenPKG http://openpkg.org Developer Communication List openpkg-dev@openpkg.org