Yes, the ebuild clearly states it: # both must be enabled to use GraphicsMagick if use imagemagick && use graphicsmagick; then myeconfargs+=( --with-graphicsmagick --without-imagemagick ) elif ! use graphicsmagick && use imagemagick; then myeconfargs+=( --with-imagemagick --without-graphicsmagick ) But every other ebuild that allows either graphicsmagick or imagemagick forces the user to choose one or the other. It doesn't make sense to require -graphicsmagick and +imagemagick for imagemagick, while requiring +graphicsmagick AND +imagemagick for graphicsmagick. The ebuild should allow only one of graphicsmagick or imagemagick (and obviously build "--with-graphicsmagick" with USE=+graphicsmagick.
It does make sense - this is how we handle every other package. imagemagick is the feature, graphicsmagick is the provider. See https://bugs.gentoo.org/314431#c28. For the case where IM usage (regardless of the provider) is optional, you have an additional USE=imagemagick.
Reopening this, because if you have correctly described the preferred methodology, then (at least) these two packages don't follow that syntax. app-misc/graphlcd-base-2.0.3-r3: REQUIRED_USE="?? ( graphicsmagick imagemagick )" media-video/dvdauthor-0.7.2-r2: REQUIRED_USE="^^ ( graphicsmagick imagemagick )"
(In reply to ta2002 from comment #2) > Reopening this, because if you have correctly described the preferred > methodology, then (at least) these two packages don't follow that syntax. > > app-misc/graphlcd-base-2.0.3-r3: > > REQUIRED_USE="?? ( graphicsmagick imagemagick )" > > > media-video/dvdauthor-0.7.2-r2: > > REQUIRED_USE="^^ ( graphicsmagick imagemagick )" Please file a new bug for each.
