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 636CF138010 for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 10:34:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1501021C078; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 10:33:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pa0-f53.google.com (mail-pa0-f53.google.com [209.85.220.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1180521C077; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 10:33:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: by padbj3 with SMTP id bj3so401208pad.40 for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 03:33:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=irdYXwK+47facMc85MMwt0c4yl2ZDSjwMTlnoV1a16Y=; b=onrXA3GOEwe50utVt64c7fcGajIk1VHZBXrWJmf/7tTymd02RS+gMOcKo3W7gkaiRs naKKYm3XU9XCm3aHN1uf08rJqywqn5bXQCZcomQjuBls/67uECBLTDt2IYlB83cMLyoQ aqlBIqd5fuDGuVMCa1o4pzbWhn3otbS0+Iy5dThD01rpN6FE71cL87NYtceiS8dYtpTo ITSwGKCYIU5LXbw+sD9Li7Nxd9jrzXtJ3+a/5M+QpqIFjWIP3EO388a58feU9ISr+nFb otAUpMmQ4nP6lusFcz6ppOh3+oDj00UyyRj7L1770gxOpfS2kw38QGDh3LdvBjuHPh4M 7lHA== Received: by 10.68.234.7 with SMTP id ua7mr1318954pbc.91.1348655591379; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 03:33:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.gmail.com:587 (74-95-192-101-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [74.95.192.101]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id oj2sm1498944pbb.26.2012.09.26.03.33.09 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 26 Sep 2012 03:33:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtp.gmail.com:587 (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 26 Sep 2012 03:33:12 -0700 Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 03:33:12 -0700 From: Brian Harring To: Micha?? G??rny Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org, gentoo-pms@lists.gentoo.org Subject: [gentoo-pms] Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal Message-ID: <20120926103312.GH26094@localhost> References: <20120916135211.GC23030@localhost> <20120926085854.6dd14bae@pomiocik.lan> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Package Manager Specification discussions X-BeenThere: gentoo-pms@gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-pms@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-pms@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120926085854.6dd14bae@pomiocik.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: 408c71c4-28a0-4777-83c6-9af14dcd2e97 X-Archives-Hash: e93c33ff7ef21cc12bd4bf2741f667fc On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 08:58:54AM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote: > On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 06:52:11 -0700 > Brian Harring wrote: > > > Keeping it short and quick, a basic glep has been written for what I'm > > proposing for DEPENDENCIES enhancement. > > > > The live version of the doc is available at > > http://dev.gentoo.org/~ferringb/unified-dependencies/extensible_dependencies.html > > One more question -- are we going to keep 'foo,bar?' syntax as > a special case applying only to dependency atoms or are we going to > extend it to USE flags? It's fairly dep specific; that's effectivelly foo|bar when you think about it; it multiplies out to dep:foo? ( that block ) dep:bar? ( that block ) in a dumb PM (smarter one just leaves the tree collapsed and filters as it goes). Phrased another way, I'm not sure we really need shorthand for the following: x? ( blah ) y? ( blah ) z? ( blah ) into x,y,z? ( blah ) It's a rare case; I could only foresee that potentially being of use for arch flags; ie, amd64,x86? ( blah ); which I'd write as "arch:amd64,x86? ( blah )" personally since I don't like the notion of introducing ',' into raw, non use group flags. That said, I don't hugely care; people think it's useful, then have at it. ~harring