On Saturday 24 February 2007, Jason Stubbs wrote:
On Saturday 24 February 2007 12:34, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 12:27:35 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| For the 14 cases you mentioned that were making a mistake, they
| probably can be rewritten so as to
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 13:51:09 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| So with your DEPEND=|| ( tetex ptex ) case, you're saying that it
| is valid because the choice of tetex or ptex doesn't affect the
| resultant binaries? Extrapolating that, specifying link dependencies
| within an ||
On Friday 23 February 2007 06:18, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:05:56 +0100 Thomas de Grenier de Latour
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:08:48 +, Ciaran McCreesh
|
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| As has been discussed in the past, the only correct way of
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:56:19 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Disallowing it would be the cleaner in terms of package manager
| responsibilities, but ...
Well, I looked through the tree.
There is exactly one package using this construct that doesn't get it
wrong. That package is
On Saturday 24 February 2007 03:57, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:56:19 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Disallowing it would be the cleaner in terms of package manager
| responsibilities, but ...
Well, I looked through the tree.
There is exactly one package
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 12:27:35 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| For the 14 cases you mentioned that were making a mistake, they
| probably can be rewritten so as to force an install of the first
| matching package, but when that isn't what is wanted it becomes a bit
| of a headache.
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 13:09:40 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| On Saturday 24 February 2007 12:34, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 12:27:35 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| wrote:
| | For the 14 cases you mentioned that were making a mistake, they
| | probably
On Saturday 24 February 2007 13:17, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 13:09:40 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Okay, I must be missing something here. If package foo can work with
| either bar or baz equily as well but not both, why should it force an
| artificial preference?
Is the current || ( use? ( ) ) behaviour something that is desirable?
As far as I know, every package manager currently implements it, but
it's also one of those things that's a nuisance to explain and it
appears to exist only because of how early Portage versions did
flattening.
More
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:08:48 +, Ciaran McCreesh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As has been discussed in the past, the only correct way of handling
this from an ebuild perspective is lots of use has_version calls
Which sounds like trying to mimic whatever the deps solver logic may
have been, no?
Simon Stelling wrote:
[snip crap]
Actually, ignore me, there's a fundamental flaw in my thinking.
--
Kind Regards,
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 developer
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:05:56 +0100 Thomas de Grenier de Latour
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:08:48 +, Ciaran McCreesh
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| As has been discussed in the past, the only correct way of handling
| this from an ebuild perspective is lots of use
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:02:27 +0100 Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| || (
| sdl? ( media-libs/libsdl )
| svga? ( media-libs/svgalib )
| opengl? ( virtual/opengl )
| ggi? ( media-libs/libggi )
| virtual/x
|
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:08:48 +
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The example given in ebuild(5) is:
|| (
sdl? ( media-libs/libsdl )
svga? ( media-libs/svgalib )
opengl? ( virtual/opengl )
ggi? ( media-libs/libggi )
virtual/x
Quoting Kevin F. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:08:48 +
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The example given in ebuild(5) is:
|| (
sdl? ( media-libs/libsdl )
svga? ( media-libs/svgalib )
opengl? ( virtual/opengl )
ggi? (
On Donnerstag, 22. Februar 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Inside || ( ) blocks, the package manager first removes any use? ( )
blocks that are *immediate* (that is to say, not inside ( ) themselves)
children if the use flag is not enabled (or disabled for !use?). Then,
if the || ( ) block is
Quoting Georgi Georgiev [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Quoting Kevin F. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:08:48 +
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The example given in ebuild(5) is:
|| (
sdl? ( media-libs/libsdl )
svga? ( media-libs/svgalib )
opengl? (
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 01:30:14 +0100 Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| What about the use has_version double check!? Apart from being
| ugly and still needed in some cases, it isn't slot safe. Why don't we
| let the package manager unset the use flags corresponding to stripped
| optional
On Freitag, 23. Februar 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Because the solution doesn't generalise. Consider:
|| ( a? ( a ) b ) a? ( a2 )
I didn't imply it to be a solution to the || ( use? ) problem you started the
thread with.
And because it makes things more rather than less complicated...
19 matches
Mail list logo
