On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 20:24:43 +1200 Kent Fredric <kentfred...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 3 July 2012 19:08, Ciaran McCreesh > <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 15:44:04 +1200 > > Kent Fredric <kentfred...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Firstly, we already have a ^^( ) syntax for REQUIRED_USE , "one > >> of, but not more than one of". > > > > A user has a and b installed. c depends upon ^^ ( a b ). The user > > tries to install c. What happens? > > I'd expect that the user would have to remove one of ( a b ), the > natural choice would be to remove b, a taking precedence.
But whether or not a and b can be installed together sounds an awful lot like a property of a and b, not of c. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
