Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] r2522 commit
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 18:19:36 + Ricardo Loureiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > || ( off1? ( blah1 ) off2? ( blah2 ) blah3 ) -> blah3 | | Can || with more than 2 elemts exist? I mean, || (blah1 blah2 blah3), | not || ( ( blah1 blah2 ) blah3 ). I thought the || was like a logical | OR and accepted only 2 elements inside of it. Those elements in turn | can be one package, several package and have a use flag conditional. | I'm asking this cause i'm having a hard time putting dep's on a | relational database and if more than 2 elements can exist inside an | OR, gotta think of another way to solve it. Sure. There're plenty of cases of more than two options inside a || ( ) block. You can also do complex nesting, like || ( ( one || ( two three four ) ) ( five six ) seven? ( || ( eight nine ten ) ) ) . -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (King of all Londinium) Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] r2522 commit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 06:44:24 + Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > || ( off1? ( blah1 ) off2? ( blah2 ) blah3 ) -> blah3 Can || with more than 2 elemts exist? I mean, || (blah1 blah2 blah3), not || ( ( blah1 blah2 ) blah3 ). I thought the || was like a logical OR and accepted only 2 elements inside of it. Those elements in turn can be one package, several package and have a use flag conditional. I'm asking this cause i'm having a hard time putting dep's on a relational database and if more than 2 elements can exist inside an OR, gotta think of another way to solve it. Ricardo Loureiro - -- http://pgp.dei.uc.pt:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x6B7C0EC0 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDvWNBJePPaWt8DsARAuxdAJ0U9kw5qSbjuoR53T26JIinAweaowCghdnU otQzvVuLPrc/eMoClHr+Zm0= =zJ0+ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] r2522 commit
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 21:33:07 -0500 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Sadly this breaks something else we apparently need and use ( or at | least Ciaran tells me so :) ) Yeah, based upon my understanding of how flag? stuff inside || () is supposed to work: || ( ) -> nothing needed || ( off1? ( blah1 ) off2? ( blah2 ) blah3 ) -> blah3 || ( off1? ( blah1 ) off2? ( blah2 ) ) -> nothing needed || ( ( off1? ( blah1 ) ) blah2 ) -> nothing needed Meaning: for every direct child of a || () block: if it's a USE flag block that isn't met, remove it. It's pretty silly really, but designed that way. Anyone actually using this feature will have to use both use *and* has_version when writing their econf / whatever call. -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (King of all Londinium) Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] r2522 commit
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 09:33:07PM -0500, Alec Warner wrote: > Author: ferringb > Date: 2006-01-04 08:57:07 + (Wed, 04 Jan 2006) > New Revision: 2522 > > Modified: >main/trunk/pym/portage_dep.py > Log: > el buggo pointed out via spyderous. > || ( a ( x? ( b ) y? ( c ) ) ) > -x -y , was resulting in || ( a () ) > > the main consumer of this, portage.dep_check is stupid, and was assuming > () was valid. > It's not, obviously. > > Long term bug, around in at least .51 . Should correct dep_check > handling of it also, but no reason to be > handing () in the result lists also. > > Sadly this breaks something else we apparently need and use ( or at > least Ciaran tells me so :) ) > > DEPEND="|| ( )" which should evaluate to DEPEND="" doesn't with this > patch. It dies, which is bad, because while stupid, it should work. Corrected with a nasty recursive filter tagged into dep_check. I really hate that code on a side note. ~harring pgpsy0XVePl1v.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-portage-dev] r2522 commit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Author: ferringb Date: 2006-01-04 08:57:07 + (Wed, 04 Jan 2006) New Revision: 2522 Modified: main/trunk/pym/portage_dep.py Log: el buggo pointed out via spyderous. || ( a ( x? ( b ) y? ( c ) ) ) - -x -y , was resulting in || ( a () ) the main consumer of this, portage.dep_check is stupid, and was assuming () was valid. It's not, obviously. Long term bug, around in at least .51 . Should correct dep_check handling of it also, but no reason to be handing () in the result lists also. Sadly this breaks something else we apparently need and use ( or at least Ciaran tells me so :) ) DEPEND="|| ( )" which should evaluate to DEPEND="" doesn't with this patch. It dies, which is bad, because while stupid, it should work. This of course is assuming that the tarball marienz sent me for trunk is correct ;P Please double check me here. This depend atom works in pre3-r1. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQIVAwUBQ7yFYmzglR5RwbyYAQLUvw/9FWIOe6jPwPrh0aXcYr9dno9S2jYX9040 GuWYPOfHPUwREUE7Szg2JUJlhB7T3Z2rXOTtf4RMvqQrtUXQ7owCQozQvz+CSveJ JxlPq5ZqhduBpbMgUq4TNm59OIPf9mfQa3KxT6cTKf58kgxdn3q9YbMSLic0yxXp 4MA1Lq6/eOV7JQQuNP3YeX44jaVgmyKQKImrcFYbN35VprdgRmeXVrhXV9ham1F+ +klOxpZyLlal2MTsFw2034n3qOtNCWQHKGsiqE4X5m8SkvF4L/E3YQ8yUBIdcQf7 kyl/DtmiybH+7UAcCX28ZBmrw7OHbp+uu1iXuO8OnPQxyqA0BWs+ymYm2iToxe6k g2ZJfaXWibYBjy5bmqfPJqrhm4Ar0sS9x+qckGrouWbcZzXdL1aST6K8uvrJvCRQ QS8gDBPiinuNYV1aEh+z8ors6Bhk2GKSZB02Jo3TsaV281oEsChfOZ9lvskfaHn8 N89ZWA5kqQdX18vB8P3jWO2Umew0dPc9+WoMgKc5CwXBP1Jsxil9Em9lbMRo7UKt ejwBv73KbVcSK7IsOJPNsXRttV2BDjs1ANPPC/hqrilVdBAJlUeGb8+h4m/c31zs KmbiOtmLX/k7uISjT33wY93LPCDCM8PVeTBtnEEVhHNIwimKbUS0gBkezSBu6UFz OQO3Z6Blwsk= =Wwi8 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
