Drakken/odb — comment on commit 5d4c72b4d003dff03a6b64461779231491173cb0
File:  line 0
By thelema:

I'll pull the version with matching. In the end, it's probably not
going to be a big deal how we handle packages that provide both a
library and a program. Checking for either should suffice. I wouldn't
think too hard on this issue - there's much more important work to be
done on odb.

E.

On 11/29/2011 10:56 PM, Dan Bensen wrote:
> Hi Edgar, have you made up your mind about Dep.has_dep? I noticed you pulled my
> (faulty?) logic into your repo. I pushed the (fixed?) match code onto mine if
> you're interested.
>
> --Dan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Edgar Friendly
>
>
> To: Dan Bensen
> Sent: Sun, November 27, 2011 5:22:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [odb] Refactored has_dep (5d4c72b)
>
> Oops, I realize now that this rewrite is incorrect. There are four cases:
> 1) `is_library` -> `test_lib d`
> 2) `is_program` -> `test_prog d`
> 3) neither -> `test_lib d || test_prog d`
> 4) both -> `test_lib d || test_prog d`
>
> The last case is changed to -> `test_lib d` in the replacement code. I'm not
> sure whether we want&& or || for this case, but I'm pretty sure we want to test
> both.
>
> E.
>
> ---
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
> https://github.com/Drakken/odb/commit/5d4c72b4d003dff03a6b64461779231491173cb0#commitcomment-748847
>
> ---
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
> https://github.com/Drakken/odb/commit/5d4c72b4d003dff03a6b64461779231491173cb0#commitcomment-756262