On Mon, 07 May 2012 20:58:18 -0700 Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> -----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. Then please show me an example of that. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
