Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:37:25 +0200 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> To: Bryan Drewery <bryan@shatow.net> Cc: lev@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: New options: options dependencies feature? Message-ID: <20120914133725.GE68582@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <50532DB9.6000106@shatow.net> References: <583243228.20120914162701@serebryakov.spb.ru> <50532DB9.6000106@shatow.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--a+b56+3nqLzpiR9O Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 08:14:33AM -0500, Bryan Drewery wrote: > On 9/14/2012 7:27 AM, Lev Serebryakov wrote: > > Hello, Freebsd-ports. > >=20 > > Is it possible to express options' dependencies in new options > > framework? > >=20 > > I need option, which could be set if and only if some other option > > is already selected. > >=20 > > Now such situations are resolved via IGNORE which is set > > conditionally, but it is old-style, maybe now here is better method? > >=20 >=20 > Beyond simple SINGLE/MULTI dependencies (adding the SINGLE/MULTI as an > option and requiring it be selected to pick from the list), no, we still > need to use IGNORE and other ways of requiring dependent options. The framework doesn't support the options interdependencies, as Brian said = you can cheat with SINGLE/MULTI for simple cases. Shouldn't be that complicated to add the feature you want, I don't have tim= e to work on this now, but I'll be happy to review propositions :) regards, Bapt --a+b56+3nqLzpiR9O Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlBTMxUACgkQ8kTtMUmk6Ew2+QCbBjGrmGYp9xDOxrVpoV19pMCv PvsAn3PHM+6m0RyY+XCTFvpjZ3pigayl =LE4n -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --a+b56+3nqLzpiR9O--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120914133725.GE68582>