From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1GQWEW-0001dA-Nc for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 21 Sep 2006 21:37:25 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with SMTP id k8LLa4MD021254; Thu, 21 Sep 2006 21:36:04 GMT Received: from smtp1.su.se (smtp1.su.se [130.237.162.112]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k8LLY912031864 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2006 21:34:09 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.su.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 024FC74088 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2006 23:34:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp1.su.se ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.su.se [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 03550-04-16 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2006 23:34:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ext0.ml.kva.se (ext0.ml.kva.se [130.237.201.25]) by smtp1.su.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85AA674008 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2006 23:34:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from wlan42.mittag-leffler.se (wlan42.mittag-leffler.se [130.237.201.242]) by ext0.ml.kva.se (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k8LLY8A0028914 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2006 23:34:08 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC about another *DEPEND variable From: Duncan Coutts To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <4512D978.2080003@gentoo.org> References: <45126B07.6030403@gentoo.org> <200609210952.27835.vapier@gentoo.org> <1158850564.16173.97.camel@localhost> <200609211111.31539.vapier@gentoo.org> <1158853263.16173.115.camel@localhost> <4512D978.2080003@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 23:34:01 +0200 Message-Id: <1158874442.16173.124.camel@localhost> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at smtp.su.se X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.665 tagged_above=-99 required=7 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.665] X-Spam-Level: X-Archives-Salt: f1bb65de-150a-4e72-97c7-e77212e3aa39 X-Archives-Hash: 1192ccab570484aacc81e31cdf6818af On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 20:27 +0200, Luca Barbato wrote: > Duncan Coutts wrote: > > > > > So my point is, I don't think it can be simply dismissed as ABI nonsense > > that we don't have to deal with. Being able to SLOT on the compiler > > flavour (and possibly version) would allow us to do useful things that > > we cannot currently do. > > what about making them build what you want depending on useflags? Aye, for the implementation flavours that's probably the way to go once we have use-deps. We'll have to hold off on multiple versions of the same compiler though. It might get a bit hairy though :-) DEPEND="ghc? ( dev-haskell/foo @ ghc ) hugs? ( dev-haskell/foo @ hugs ) yhc? ( dev-haskell/foo @ yhc ) jhc? ( dev-haskell/foo @ jhc )" (I've not looked up what the use-dep syntax is, I'm just guessing) Duncan -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list