Excerpts from Ciaran McCreesh's message of må. juli 13 21:46:43 +0200 2009:
> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 21:35:21 +0200
> Gaute Hope <[email protected]> wrote:
> > And what about different opengl providers? They conflict and you need
> > one of them. Adding all to || deps for all packages that need one
> > doesn't seem like a good idea. PROVIDING/REPLACING/CONFLICTS variables
> > do tend to cause a mess though.
>
> The question on those is:
>
> * Are they needed at build time?
> * Are they switchable at runtime?
> * Why do they conflict?
>
> I'm not convinced that || is a good way of expressing anything... So
> the question becomes "what would we need to be able to express using
> new syntax if || were removed?".
I also think || is pretty bad. I think for instance mplayer should have
a dependency like:
opengl? ( providers/opengl )
Then you would add new providers to providers/opengl; mesa, nvidia and
ati as exhereses exist. They again need to be hooked up to something
eclectic-like.
If an application needs the same provider at runtime as build you would
use the same syntax as with slots:
opengl? ( providers/opengl:= )
if i.e. mplayer doesn't work with nvidia-provider:
opengl? ( providers/opengl[-nvidia] )
this syntax would also make sense in case mplayer needs mesa to build,
but run with ati:
build:
opengl? ( providers/opengl[mesa] )
run:
opengl? ( providers/opengl )
this would keep a somewhat central place for providers and you don't end
up with a REPLACES=( nvidia, nvidia-driver, nvidia-unofficial, nvidia ati, ...
) and so on..
- gaute
_______________________________________________
Exherbo-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.exherbo.org/mailman/listinfo/exherbo-dev
