On 08/16/2011 12:40 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:26:41 -0700 > Zac Medico <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 08/16/2011 12:01 AM, Micha? Górny wrote: >>>>> 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? > >> Actually, since EAPI 4 we have default src_install, so it's possible >> to have ebuilds that have no defined phases but still install stuff. > > + empty SRC_URI? I guess something like the workdir fallback conditions > in PMS.
When you consider that "live" ebuilds can have empty SRC_URI and download things during src_unpack, it seems more sensible and simple to introduce PROPERTIES="live" or something like it. That way, we'll have a simple boolean flag and won't have to make any fragile assumptions. -- Thanks, Zac
