From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04B0F138010 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 23:07:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1736E21C00C; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 23:06:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4DBAE06F4 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 23:03:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.26.5] (ip98-164-193-252.oc.oc.cox.net [98.164.193.252]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: zmedico) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E900F33D8A2 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 23:03:26 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <504142BD.7060905@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:03:25 -0700 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120802 Thunderbird/14.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] HDEPEND (host dependencies for cross-compilation) for EAPI 5? References: <50411874.4060204@gentoo.org> <20120831214611.088b3f50@googlemail.com> <5041288A.6030802@gentoo.org> <50413399.4030000@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5a1pre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: af592ba3-2837-4d80-a898-1437042a475d X-Archives-Hash: fd9c66532db5764ed7d251d7342fa276 On 08/31/2012 03:18 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote: > On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Zac Medico wrote: >> >> For optional dependencies, I'm pretty happy with the "runtime-switchable >> USE flags" proposal: >> >> https://gist.github.com/2945569 > > runtime-switchable USE flags for optional dependencies o.O? It sounds > like using a spoon to eat spaghetti to me. All suggested deps are not equal, so USE flags give you the ability to pick and choose the ones that you want. > I think SDEPEND is a much simpler approach to the issue, why > introducing a new kind of USE flags to address what really belongs to > *DEPEND? I guess we could combine the two ideas if we allow USE conditionals inside SDEPEND. -- Thanks, Zac