On 05/07/2012 09:07 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > 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.
I don't see any offhand. I guess it's fairly uncommon, or non-existent. -- Thanks, Zac
