On Thursday 26 January 2006 20:56, Brian Harring wrote: > Patch misses on > || ( virtual/x11 )
A theoretical case, but if you want to cover it... > || ( x86? ( virtual/x11 ) b ) > via the latter, kind of guranteed it's going to miss on It's not a "miss" per se as much as other dependency checks that aren't performed are a miss when there is invalid syntax - which prevents a commit anyway. If you make "b" a proper atom that specifies a category it'll be picked up. > || ( x86? ( valid-dep ) virtual/x11 ) There is no way that I can see around this without highly increasing the possibility of false positives. Are you planning to treat arch flags separately? -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
