On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 05:38:06PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > "Steven J. Long" <sl...@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 06:56:14PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > But with the current syntax, there's no such thing as "the > > > spec that is in both". There are two specs, which happen to be > > > identical as strings, one in DEPEND and one in RDEPEND, and there's > > > no way for the two to be associated. > > > > > Now that *is* dishonestly ignorant: you know full well that LDEPEND > > [1] covers exactly that case. > > Everyone else knows full well that LDEPEND is such a badly broken idea > that it's not worth discussing...
*sigh* and as usual you ignore the actual point: > So there is a very easy way for the two to be associated, and to specify > the most common (or any other, should it be justified) dependency that > is in both, with the current syntax. Irrespective of which variable we discuss, the fact remains that it is perfectly possible to specify a dependency that is in both, addressing the points raised by Harring, which are actually your concerns. Except you couldn't be bothered to outline those, just like you are hand- waving now. Again, I am left wondering just what kind of academics Cambridge is producing nowadays. -- #friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
