On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 19:42:01 -0700 Zac Medico <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 08/15/2011 11:41 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Now that we don't have any old-style virtuals in gx86 anymore, > > I think the 'virtual' category is basically one another plain > > category nowadays. > > In sys-apps/portage, the "virtual" category is used as a hint to the > dependency resolver it needs to look ahead in order to make the best > possible choices. For example, in order to solve bug #141118 [1], it > recursively expands virtual/jre and virtual/jdk in order to > efficiently satisfy a jre dependency with whatever jdk happens to be > installed, instead of pulling in a redundant jre. Isn't that another, ugly, non-PMS hack which makes people think they are creating correct packages? > > Considering the number of different virtuals in this category, > > maybe it would be a good idea to split it a little? What I'm > > proposing is maybe creating some kind of '*-virtual' categories. > > > > For example, half of the current virtuals are prefixed with 'perl-'. > > Maybe they could be transformed into 'perl-virtual/*'? > > If you're going to do that, then I'd suggest giving them some sort of > tag that the package manager can rely upon in order to identify them > as virtuals. For example, we could have the ebuilds set > PROPERTIES=virtual [2], or we could simply specify (in PMS) that any > category whose name matches the '*-virtual' pattern will contain > virtuals. Doesn't DEFINED_PHASES==- serve that purpose nowadays? > [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=141118 > [2] > http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_9d449a18a96a25a547fcfd40544085cf.xml -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
