[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Creation of 'virtual/vi' to satisfy builds

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Creation of 'virtual/vi' to satisfy builds

[Spider]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 835 bytes --]

begin  quote
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 15:58:56 -0600
Daniel Robbins <drobbins@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 01:00:16PM -0400, Brad Laue wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > I'm running into builds requiring the 'ex' binary, which is provided
> > by several vi clones.
> > 
> > I'd like to suggest the creation of 'virtual/vi' to satisfy this 
> > problem. Are there any comments/objections?
> 
> Should we have a virtual/vi and a virtual/ex? Or should we require
> that anything providing virtual/vi includes an ex?

Anything that provides vi should out of compability reasons also provide
ex.

Now, why isnt this discussion on -dev?
//Spider

(not removing quotes due to crossposting)


-- 
begin  .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Creation of 'virtual/vi' to satisfy builds

[Aron Griffis]

Brad Laue wrote:	[Wed Jul 09 2003, 01:00:16PM EDT]
> I'm running into builds requiring the 'ex' binary, which is provided
> by several vi clones.
> 
> I'd like to suggest the creation of 'virtual/vi' to satisfy this 
> problem. Are there any comments/objections?

In principle, I don't have a problem with this, but I have a couple
questions:

1. Does having a virtual require that only one of the options is
   installed at a time?  I recall this being the case with
   ssmtp/postfix/etc, but maybe that's specific to those ebuilds.
   I wouldn't want Gentoo to be restricted to a single vi-clone on a
   system.

2. What are the builds that require ex?  That's a pretty strange
   requirement, to be honest.  Most builds I've seen require ed for
   non-interactive editing, not ex.

3. What about the case where you install vim, then install nvi, then
   uninstall nvi?  In that case /usr/bin/ex will disappear from the
   system (because the files conflict between packages), but the virtual
   will still be "satisfied".

4. What are the ebuilds that provide ex?  At first glance, I only see
   nvi and vim.

Aron

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Creation of 'virtual/vi' to satisfy builds

[Brad Laue]

Aron Griffis wrote:

> 2. What are the builds that require ex?  That's a pretty strange
>    requirement, to be honest.  Most builds I've seen require ed for
>    non-interactive editing, not ex.

A Makefile generation script within the mozilla build required it, but I
decided adding two dependencies just to make a Makefile which isn't
specific to the user's system was overcomplicating matters.

Also, I noticed earlier the presence of virtual/editor, which nvi/vim
can satisfy, so I don't know how much utility virtual/ex will serve...

Brad

-- 
// -- http://www.BRAD-X.com/ -- //


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Creation of 'virtual/vi' to satisfy builds

[Spider]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1162 bytes --]

begin  quote
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 22:28:46 -0400
Aron Griffis <agriffis@gentoo.org> wrote:



> 1. Does having a virtual require that only one of the options is
>    installed at a time?  I recall this being the case with
>    ssmtp/postfix/etc, but maybe that's specific to those ebuilds.
>    I wouldn't want Gentoo to be restricted to a single vi-clone on a
>    system.

No , those builds also -conflict- with the virtual, to prevent any other
thing that satisfies said virtual from working.



> 
> 3. What about the case where you install vim, then install nvi, then
>    uninstall nvi?  In that case /usr/bin/ex will disappear from the
>    system (because the files conflict between packages), but the
>    virtual will still be "satisfied".

This is a hairy issue which probably should be fixed within portage
(sanity check of some sort??  check target of symlinks perhaps?)

> 
> 4. What are the ebuilds that provide ex?  At first glance, I only see
>    nvi and vim.

classic vi do that as well.

//Spider

-- 
begin  .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Creation of 'virtual/vi' to satisfy builds

[Aron Griffis]

Brad Laue wrote:	[Wed Jul 09 2003, 10:41:00PM EDT]
> A Makefile generation script within the mozilla build required it, but
> I decided adding two dependencies just to make a Makefile which isn't
> specific to the user's system was overcomplicating matters.
> 
> Also, I noticed earlier the presence of virtual/editor, which nvi/vim
> can satisfy, so I don't know how much utility virtual/ex will serve...

Are you saying that you're no longer pursuing virtual/ex?

Aron

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Creation of 'virtual/vi' to satisfy builds

[Aron Griffis]

Spider wrote:	[Thu Jul 10 2003, 04:32:43AM EDT]
> classic vi do that as well.

Hehe, that one didn't turn up with "ls -d */?vi*" (of course).  There's
also elvis and vile.  I guess there's quite a few that would satisfy 
virtual/ex, but I'm still hesitant to add it for a single questionable
build.

Dubiously yours,
Aron

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Creation of 'virtual/vi' to satisfy builds

[Spider]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 648 bytes --]

begin  quote
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:55:35 -0400
Aron Griffis <agriffis@gentoo.org> wrote:

> 
> I'm still hesitant to add it for a single questionable build.

Oh, that I can agree on, especially since it isn't needed anymore
(according to  mozilla changelogs )

But, nonetheless its a functionality that a lot of packages actually
supply, and I think they are all quite compatible (no, I dont use ex
myself very often... do you folks? ;)

let this thread fall I think...  until next time ;)

//Spider

-- 
begin  .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]