On Mon, 07 May 2012 14:41:33 -0700 Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 05/07/2012 01:43 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Mon, 07 May 2012 13:24:31 -0700 > > Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > >> On 05/07/2012 12:18 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Mon, 7 May 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > >>> > >>>> I propose: > >>> > >>>> REQUIRED_USE="== ( qt webkit )" > >>> > >>> But this just means that the ebuild has redundant USE flags, so > >>> one of them shouldn't be in IUSE, in the first place. > >> > >> It serves to convey meaning, such that a user who has disabled the > >> qt USE flag will get a meaningful prompt if that flag is required > >> for webkit support. This kind of information could be useful to > >> some people, and it may be preferable to having a separate > >> webkit-qt flag. > > > > If 'qt' flag is required for webkit support, it's 'webkit? ( qt )'. > > What if '!webkit? ( !qt )' also applies though? As an alternative to > listing both constraints separately, you could combine them as '^^ ( > webkit !qt )', or add support for '== ( qt webkit )' to make the > expression easier to read. Then it's pointless to have the 'webkit' flag which doesn't control anything. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
