From 91cc612e67b25b1b3ade72355ed9fcd69e7e9d66 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joey Hess Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 12:14:34 -0400 Subject: comment --- ...ment_7_9c45f473cbc432a32bd64bbbf048fae4._comment | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/todo/pull_request:_patch_Apt.buildDep_to_only_proceed_if_installable/comment_7_9c45f473cbc432a32bd64bbbf048fae4._comment (limited to 'doc/todo') diff --git a/doc/todo/pull_request:_patch_Apt.buildDep_to_only_proceed_if_installable/comment_7_9c45f473cbc432a32bd64bbbf048fae4._comment b/doc/todo/pull_request:_patch_Apt.buildDep_to_only_proceed_if_installable/comment_7_9c45f473cbc432a32bd64bbbf048fae4._comment new file mode 100644 index 00000000..e2611fd5 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/todo/pull_request:_patch_Apt.buildDep_to_only_proceed_if_installable/comment_7_9c45f473cbc432a32bd64bbbf048fae4._comment @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +[[!comment format=mdwn + username="joey" + subject="""comment 7""" + date="2015-12-02T16:10:34Z" + content=""" +The two combinators are indeed very similar. The reason I wrote +changesFile the way I did is that that allows it to be applied repeatedly +when a property can change any of several files. + + trivial someprop + `changesFile` "foo" + `changesFile` "bar" + +That seems fairly likely to come up, while it would be unusual for a +property to have to change multiple files at once to be considered +to make a change at all, which is what multiple applications of +`noChangeIfUnchanged` leads to. + +But neither combinator causes apt's output to not be displayed, +which is what I thought we were talking about. +"""]] -- cgit v1.2.3