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 4DE6E138010 for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 12:18:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3707421C281; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 12:17:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-da0-f53.google.com (mail-da0-f53.google.com [209.85.210.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CC9321C27F; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 12:17:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by dadg9 with SMTP id g9so832500dad.40 for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 05:17:12 -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=cLqDwOHWhe3S1xv9I1pKNPOrI9QQzhvHRuTKobxGAJM=; b=q82xMWPXDzYB9XrkY1AIZt15iLbxah3mFYxmRKKk+8x+eT2/175KgrSOF6mCuCEmdu vVfXgzuXhGANI76DHGIpLKtGOcr/MiXgstJi6/DqDmpZWkAmPeiyIkJLIAj10YX5bKD/ BJBwgmgXfuOt9JVnhn00ZyBv7kEQNRADr7fqQQTEMHNA+Xk3BbxMtBqlDuKhrNEZifCk 581mZcaM8GotW+GvtRGzNujasIBQ/5p/Jh8BUYlPpOkLroshJBUCZFSTZRvoIa67VXWs Y53MCb4Ct4gcX9VcJlPegypRmHf4QUaoHxdzfWZEZzGgLdvxYxucIXiIny9W+ZUBBG3m 5qcw== Received: by 10.68.83.68 with SMTP id o4mr20184149pby.25.1348834632421; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 05:17:12 -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 vu7sm1203283pbc.9.2012.09.28.05.17.09 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 28 Sep 2012 05:17:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtp.gmail.com:587 (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 28 Sep 2012 05:17:08 -0700 Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 05:17:08 -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: <20120928121708.GA2180@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: fb58261c-091a-4852-86cd-94762aecad76 X-Archives-Hash: 551043030be9accf45cb5915f55fb144 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? Note that's dep:foo,bar; not a bare "allow any use flags to be OR'd together". In light of the fact it *is* just an expansion hack, the usage is semi limited although there are scenarios for it; arches, namely (if amd64 or x86, use this, if mips, that, etc). I have no preference either way; extending it outside of dep isn't necessary if people hate it, although as said, there are some potential uses for it. That said, if we were to start using it, the ',' as an 'or' operator mildly sucks; dep:build|run also sucks (hard to read), and dep:build+run, to me at least, implies 'and'. And yep, bikeshedding potential there. ~harrin