Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal

2012-09-28 Thread Brian Harring 
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 08:58:54AM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
 On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 06:52:11 -0700
 Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  Keeping it short and quick, a basic glep has been written for what I'm 
  proposing for DEPENDENCIES enhancement.
  
  The live version of the doc is available at 
  http://dev.gentoo.org/~ferringb/unified-dependencies/extensible_dependencies.html
   
 
 One more question -- are we going to keep 'foo,bar?' syntax as
 a special case applying only to dependency atoms or are we going to
 extend it to USE flags?

Note that's dep:foo,bar; not a bare allow any use flags to be OR'd 
together.  In light of the fact it *is* just an expansion hack, the 
usage is semi limited although there are scenarios for it; arches, 
namely (if amd64 or x86, use this, if mips, that, etc).

I have no preference either way; extending it outside of dep isn't 
necessary if people hate it, although as said, there are some 
potential uses for it.

That said, if we were to start using it, the ',' as an 'or' operator 
mildly sucks; dep:build|run also sucks (hard to read), and 
dep:build+run, to me at least, implies 'and'.  And yep, bikeshedding 
potential there.

~harrin

Re: [gentoo-dev] patch eutils.eclass for EAPI 5

2012-09-28 Thread Jeroen Roovers 
On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 13:16:45 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:

 i actually just committed the fix discussed in #gentoo-dev , using
 'declare -F' instead (similar to the eqawarn conditional declaration
 already in eutils.eclass)

You forgot to add an entry to eclass/ChangeLog.


 jer

[gentoo-dev] Re: patch eutils.eclass for EAPI 5

2012-09-28 Thread Ulrich Mueller 
 On Thu, 27 Sep 2012, Zac Medico wrote:

 --- eutils.eclass   15 Sep 2012 16:16:53 -  1.403
 +++ eutils.eclass   27 Sep 2012 16:45:14 -
 @@ -1373,7 +1373,9 @@
  # @DESCRIPTION:
  # If USE flag is set, echo [true output][true suffix] (defaults to yes),
  # otherwise echo [false output][false suffix] (defaults to no).
 +if has ${EAPI:-0} 0 1 2 3 4; then
  usex() { use $1  echo ${2-yes}$4 || echo ${3-no}$5 ; } #382963
 +fi
  
  # @FUNCTION: prune_libtool_files
  # @USAGE: [--all]

 Looks good to me.

 It may not work for unofficial EAPIs that don't include usex, but I
 guess there's nothing we can do for those, and they can just be
 replaced with newer EAPIs that include usex.

 Something like this would work with current versions of portage:

 if ! declare -F usex /dev/null ; then
usex() { use $1  echo ${2-yes}$4 || echo ${3-no}$5 ; }
 fi

 However, it's probably not a good idea to assume that the package
 manager defines usex prior to sourcing the eclass.

I agree, and I've replaced the declare -F by the explicit EAPI test
from the above patch.

Ulrich

Re: [gentoo-dev] patch eutils.eclass for EAPI 5

2012-09-28 Thread Ian Stakenvicius 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On 28/09/12 10:32 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
 On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 13:16:45 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
 a...@gentoo.org wrote:
 
 i actually just committed the fix discussed in #gentoo-dev ,
 using 'declare -F' instead (similar to the eqawarn conditional
 declaration already in eutils.eclass)
 
 You forgot to add an entry to eclass/ChangeLog.
 
 
 jer
 


..should have been one.. I ran echangelog and a blanket cvs commit to
submit it.  *shrug*

Will double-check the commit next time and fix the ChangeLog if it
didn't work.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAlBl2XEACgkQ2ugaI38ACPCYwwD/WDVp/5Mm7QJqaKDJQ8QDKT2S
NciA/t5yzRXp7oMYdygA/0HxrtuIn6ju+OnSwv3r07X00HOMtH8l9wrRE3/jmjOU
=Nlqd
-END PGP SIGNATURE-