On Wed, Jul 11, 2007, Thomas Lotterer wrote:
> The topic is about how to handle with_foo for a with_foo_bar option that
> only makes sense in concert with with_foo.
>
> > On Tue, Jul 10, 2007, Christoph Schug wrote:
> >
> > For me, it looks more like the second [implicit] case, but I might be
> > wrong. If not, there should be some fiddling in the "fixing implicit
> > extension dependencies and correlations" section, right?
> >
> I remember the "implicit dependency" issue but wasn't sure what the best
> practice is to make clear to the user that with_imap_annotate implies
> with_imap. My ideas were:
>
> - use "if with_foo || with_foo_bar" in the "with_foo" logic
> this will build with_foo if only with_foo_bar is given but
> "rpm -qi" will show up with_foo=no. Bad
>
> - implicitly set "with_foo=yes" when the user chooses "with_foo_bar"
> AFAIK the current practice. Build and query ok, but somewhat magic.
>
> - make the package require itself, enforcing an explicit setting
> Something like "if with_foo_bar then require self::with_foo=yes"
>
> If the latter works, I'd prefer it. Never tested it.
As I think RPM will not allow the latter, just use the second one.
This is what we already have in a bunch of similar packages.
Ralf S. Engelschall
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.engelschall.com
______________________________________________________________________
OpenPKG http://openpkg.org
Developer Communication List openpkg-dev@openpkg.org
