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 4.54) id 1F1irV-0004X3-3C for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 25 Jan 2006 11:30:53 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id k0PBTfns029231; Wed, 25 Jan 2006 11:29:41 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k0PBRKSk011690 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2006 11:27:20 GMT Received: from zb101200.ppp.dion.ne.jp ([219.125.101.200] helo=opteron246.suzuki-stubbs.home) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.54) id 1F1io4-0007LU-0T for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 25 Jan 2006 11:27:20 +0000 Received: by opteron246.suzuki-stubbs.home (Postfix, from userid 1000) id CA20E201BD6; Wed, 25 Jan 2006 20:27:22 +0900 (JST) From: Jason Stubbs To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 20:27:22 +0900 User-Agent: KMail/1.9 References: <43D5D1E4.9020801@gentoo.org> <200601251806.02674.jstubbs@gentoo.org> <43D7409C.6090207@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <43D7409C.6090207@gentoo.org> 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200601252027.22591.jstubbs@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 82928d83-8be6-410a-86c3-a40e8096e488 X-Archives-Hash: 82a58ca594499eba3a136c8bfdf5e0a4 On Wednesday 25 January 2006 18:10, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > Jason Stubbs wrote: > > DEPEND="x11-base/xorg-x11" # wrong > > DEPEND="virtual/x11" # wrong > > DEPEND="|| ( x11? ( virtual/x11 ) )" # wrong > > DEPEND="|| ( misc/atoms virtual/x11 )" # right > > > > There's a small possibility that broken packages will be missed by this, > > but is there any chance that valid packages will be incorrectly flagged? > > If this gets a go-ahead, it'll be easy enough to get in for the next > > release (which is likely this coming Saturday). > > It sounds right. There should be no valid instance of virtual/x11 that > is not within an || dep. I've implemented and tested the check locally but haven't committed it yet. Repoman isn't really structured to allow for tests against a set of ebuilds so the checks are done on every version. There is also definitely one false positive (virtual/x11-6.8) so, for this and the fact that every version is tested, it would probably better to just make it a warning. Thoughts? -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list