-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 05/07/2012 08:50 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > 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.
Generalize the discussion to be about two abstract flags "x" and "y" that have the same kind of relationship, where each one actually does control something, but the two features are intertwined in a particular package such that they must both be enabled or disabled in unison. - -- Thanks, Zac -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk+omdkACgkQ/ejvha5XGaO4CQCdGwcuuk4usnDj25nrcmd7D697 /TgAn3vXcPzEX3jCLhBVPPbnnX+lLWDW =G/eD -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
