ohhhh I like this one RangerRick.
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
>>> 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
> #ifdef X11
> 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
> 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.
> Fink-devel mailing list