On 08/16/2011 02:32 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:19:38 -0700 > Zac Medico <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Isn't that another, ugly, non-PMS hack which makes people think they >>> are creating correct packages? >> >> Are you saying that you'd prefer to have package managers pull in >> redundant packages for not good reason? > > No, package managers should get things right regardless of whether > something is in the 'virtual/' category or not. If they can't get > things right, then we need to supply them with more data.
Consider the virtual/jre and virtual/jdk case. Suppose that virtual/jdk isn't installed for some reason, but dev-java/sun-jdk which satisfies it is already installed. In this case, unless you know that virtual/jdk is zero-cost, it's not clear that it costs less to install virtual/jdk than to install dev-java/sun-jre-bin. There may be lots of cases like this where zero-cost metadata would be useful. > And most importantly, you need to stop adding in short-sighted hacks to > 'fix' one bug at the expense of consistency and quality. Call it what you want, but the behavior that I implemented for bug 141118 seems relatively optimal to me. -- Thanks, Zac
