On Tuesday 23 September 2008 22:44:35 Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > > False. If for instance coolfeature was made optional in >=pv you
> > > can use logic like:
> > >
> > > if has_version '>=cat/foo-pv' && ! has_version
> > > 'cat/foo[coolfeature]'; then ewarn '...'
> > > fi
> >
> > I think this should
Alexis Ballier kirjoitti:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 23:33:44 +0300
Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bo Ørsted Andresen kirjoitti:
On Monday 22 September 2008 22:25:20 Petteri Räty wrote:
If you mean something like
built_with_use cat/foo coolfeature || ewarn "bar will be more
useful if y
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 23:33:44 +0300
Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bo Ørsted Andresen kirjoitti:
> > On Monday 22 September 2008 22:25:20 Petteri Räty wrote:
> >>> If you mean something like
> >>>
> >>> built_with_use cat/foo coolfeature || ewarn "bar will be more
> >>> useful if you
Bo Ørsted Andresen kirjoitti:
On Monday 22 September 2008 22:25:20 Petteri Räty wrote:
If you mean something like
built_with_use cat/foo coolfeature || ewarn "bar will be more useful if you rebuild cat/foo with USE=coolfeature"
then you can use
has_version 'cat/foo[coolfeature]' ||
On Monday 22 September 2008 22:25:20 Petteri Räty wrote:
> > If you mean something like
> >
> > built_with_use cat/foo coolfeature || ewarn "bar will be more useful if
> > you rebuild cat/foo with USE=coolfeature"
> >
> > then you can use
> >
> > has_version 'cat/foo[coolfeature]' || ...
David Leverton kirjoitti:
On Saturday 20 September 2008 18:15:27 Alexis Ballier wrote:
I can think of checks like:
- foo is a dep/rdep of bar
- foo has a "plugin like" architecture
- bar will "work" with minimal foo
- most people will expect some features in bar that come with foo's
plugins
- we
David Leverton wrote:
> On Saturday 20 September 2008 18:15:27 Alexis Ballier wrote:
>> I can think of checks like:
>> - foo is a dep/rdep of bar
>> - foo has a "plugin like" architecture
>> - bar will "work" with minimal foo
>> - most people will expect some features in bar that come with foo's
>>
On Saturday 20 September 2008 18:15:27 Alexis Ballier wrote:
> I can think of checks like:
> - foo is a dep/rdep of bar
> - foo has a "plugin like" architecture
> - bar will "work" with minimal foo
> - most people will expect some features in bar that come with foo's
> plugins
> - we might want to
Alexis Ballier kirjoitti:
Hi,
When EAPI 2 goes live built_with_use should probably die for most
cases.
I don't understand here: you mean die like being removed or die like
the die call in an ebuild? If I understood correctly the following it
should be the latter.
Well we could go with eit
Hi,
> When EAPI 2 goes live built_with_use should probably die for most
> cases.
I don't understand here: you mean die like being removed or die like
the die call in an ebuild? If I understood correctly the following it
should be the latter.
> Are there valid use cases for built_with_use that a
When EAPI 2 goes live built_with_use should probably die for most cases.
Are there valid use cases for built_with_use that are not covered by the
use deps in EAPI 2? If there are we could add a switch like --noeapi2die
to it.
Regards,
Petteri
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signa
11 matches
Mail list logo
