On 11/13/14 23:15, Zac Medico wrote:
On 11/13/2014 08:01 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Michael Palimaka <kensing...@gentoo.org> wrote:
On 14/11/14 11:06, Rich Freeman wrote:
Well, the idea would be to maintain the virtual INSTEAD of @system, or
have @system just pull in the virtual and make some arch-specific
additions.
Will that work? Some profiles remove packages from the base @system and
replace it with their own implementations (eg. BSD).
Maybe. The thing is that a package either depends on something or it
doesn't. If it really does depend on something, then the fact that it
isn't available on BSD/etc isn't going to magically make the package
work. We just loosely define system dependencies in a way that makes
them work 98% of the time, basically accepting that things are going
to break and we get away with it because few of our users actually run
on BSD/etc.
If it is just a matter of preference then a profile could install an
alternative package that is in a virtual. However, this won't work if
everybody still uses some convenience virtual that pulls in bash/etc
and the BSD folks don't want to install bash unnecessarily.
Maybe I'm missing something, but if you are using virtuals, then you can
make the deps conditional on profile forced/masked flags like
userland_BSD and userland_GNU if necessary. These behave like normal USE
flags, aside from the fact the they are forced or masked by profiles.
Sorry Zac, I posted my reply before I read this. This is essentially
the point I was making. However, I think this will be cumbersome. With
the current way we do things, its easy to delete packages from @system
by just doing '-*sys-apps/man-pages' (for example) in a profile's
packages file. It is not so easy to delete from a DEPEND string, so I
foresee some tricky if logic here.
--
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-Mail : bluen...@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA
GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA
