On 6/16/05, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 18:01 +0300, Alin Dobre wrote: > > Jonathan Smith wrote: > > > The desktop-misc herd (which was sadly neglected until recently) could > > > benefit from a new virtual. x11-misc/xautolock is a wrapper which locks > > > the screen via any appropriate program such as xlockmore or xtrlock. > > > > xscreensaver locks the screen, too, besides its normal screensaver > > features (like xlockmore). > > > > > This program needs to depend on an xlocker, but we should not lock users > > > into one specific one. > > > > > > See bug 95246 [1] > > > > > > I would probably name it virtual/xlocker, but other suggestions are, of > > > course, welcome. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > [1]: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=95246 > > > > > You don't have to setup a virtual for this. In fact, the simpler method > (especially when dealing with only one package) is to use the || *DEPEND > syntax. > > RDEPEND="|| ( > x11-misc/xscreensaver > x11-misc/xlockmore > x11-misc/xtrlock )" > > This would prefer xscreensaver over the others, but any would satisfy > the dependency.
Hi guys, thanks for you to look of my reply on this bug :) It don't think that a virtual need to be use here. 3 softwares for a virtual is quite less. Why are you placing a REDEPEND instead of a PDEPEND ? xautolock *doesn't need* on of theses software to compile. It need one of them to be usable. Is the side, it's a post depend. ++ Beber -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
