From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j27HgZWV031048 for ; Mon, 7 Mar 2005 17:42:35 GMT Received: from ppsw-6.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.136]) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.42) id 1D8MFW-0008Pp-1z for gentoo-dev@robin.gentoo.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2005 17:42:34 +0000 Received: from spb42.christs.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.233.172]:54471) by ppsw-6.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.156]:465) with esmtpsa (PLAIN:spb42) (SSLv3:RC4-MD5:128) id 1D8MFR-00053H-JV (Exim 4.44) for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org (return-path ); Mon, 07 Mar 2005 17:42:29 +0000 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP ??: Metapackages From: Stephen Bennett To: gentoo-dev@robin.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20050307112639.6687812b@eusebe> References: <1109715352.3788.42.camel@localhost> <20050307112639.6687812b@eusebe> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 17:45:32 +0000 Message-Id: <1110217532.32301.5.camel@localhost> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: spb42@hermes.cam.ac.uk X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/ X-Cam-AntiVirus: No virus found X-Cam-SpamDetails: Not scanned X-Archives-Salt: 8043c85f-bb3d-4b57-ba8d-fe659025865e X-Archives-Hash: f2ff104fdaad0d00bcf4c0ac953e8860 On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 11:26 +0100, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote: > So, in short, dropping the "virtuals" file is a regression imho, > because it makes portage behavior less deterministic; it will > depend more on the history of user actions (calls to emerge), and > less on user prefs, making it harder to understand and control. What's been discussed, but isn't in the GLEP draft, is a /etc/portage file to let you override metapackage dependencies. It's not in there because the syntax and implementation hasn't been worked out fully, but it should work akin to /etc/portage/virtuals. > Oh, and btw, this lack of "virtuals" prefs file may also be a > problem for official profiles. For instance, I see that "base" > currently has "virtual/jdk dev-java/blackdown-jdk", whereas ppc > profiles override that with "virtual/jdk dev-java/ibm-jdk-bin". > And i guess they have good reasons to do so... How will that be > handled with metapkgs? By having numerous "arch? ( ... )" in the > DEPEND string? It could be done with arch? ( ) in the DEPEND string, or just by not keywording packages on a given arch, or masking them in the profile. The dependency resolver is already fully able to cope with that sort of situation, whereas the current virtuals mechanism isn't. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list