ohhhh I like this one RangerRick. --- TS http://southofheaven.org Chaos is the beginning and end, try dealing with the rest.
On 11-Feb-04, at 5:27 AM, Benjamin Reed wrote:
Daniel Macks wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 01:05:54PM -0500, Daniel Macks wrote:The simpler version of the idea is just a simple string equality test:
Depends: (%type_perl_version 5.8.1) thing-pm Depends: (X%type_nox X) x11
Either [the two strings in parens] are the same (so the package is kept as a dependency) or they are not (in which case the it is not).This syntax turned out to be not very difficult to implement. Unless anyone has any objections to having this functionality, taking this approach, or using this syntax...
I'm not against the idea of "variants" nor "variant dependencies", but the syntax is very strange, there's a lot of noise.
Wouldn't it make more sense to maybe do something as a preprocessor stage or something like that rather than adding even more new and unusual syntax?
Since you can have carriage returns in depends and stuff now (at least I think you can) you could do:
Depends: << #if PERL_VERSION = 5.8.1 thing-pm, #endif #ifdef X11 foo, #else foo-nox, #endif bar <<
It's still not pretty, but it at least lets people bootstrap off a lot of existing domain knowledge of the C preprocessor. And we wouldn't even have to write anything new, we just have to call cpp with the right -D's for everything fink "provides" and everything is done for us.
------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
