[gentoo-dev] virtual/locate?

[gentoo-dev] virtual/locate?

[Ulrich Mueller]

Hi,

we have now three implementations of locate in the tree that block
each other: sys-apps/{m,r,s}locate

This looks like the classical case for a virtual/locate. Any opinions?

I came across the issue when committing the new package app-emacs/fff
(which is the Emacs equivalent of app-vim/locateopen) to the Emacs
overlay; it will be moved to the tree soon.

Ulrich
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/locate?

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 615 bytes --]

Ulrich Mueller kirjoitti:
> Hi,
> 
> we have now three implementations of locate in the tree that block
> each other: sys-apps/{m,r,s}locate
> 
> This looks like the classical case for a virtual/locate. Any opinions?
> 
> I came across the issue when committing the new package app-emacs/fff
> (which is the Emacs equivalent of app-vim/locateopen) to the Emacs
> overlay; it will be moved to the tree soon.
> 
> Ulrich

Is there something/how many that will need to depend on that? I think
locate is not part of the system set either so no virtual is needed for
that either.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/locate?

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Petteri Räty wrote:

>> we have now three implementations of locate in the tree that block
>> each other: sys-apps/{m,r,s}locate
>> 
>> This looks like the classical case for a virtual/locate. Any
>> opinions?

> Is there something/how many that will need to depend on that?

I found three packages:
app-vim/locateopen (which currently has only {r,s}locate in RDEPEND,
probably due to the fact that the mlocate maintainer is not a
"vi man"), kde-misc/kio-locate, and the new app-emacs/fff.

And nothing depends on one of the individual packages only.

Ulrich
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/locate?

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 574 bytes --]

On Monday 17 September 2007, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> we have now three implementations of locate in the tree that block
> each other: sys-apps/{m,r,s}locate

findutils could provide locate as well, we just disable it

> This looks like the classical case for a virtual/locate. Any opinions?

i'd really prefer we avoid it

> I came across the issue when committing the new package app-emacs/fff
> (which is the Emacs equivalent of app-vim/locateopen) to the Emacs
> overlay; it will be moved to the tree soon.

how is it required ?  it just runs `locate` at runtime ?
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: virtual/locate?

[Christian Faulhammer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 702 bytes --]

Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>:

> > I came across the issue when committing the new package
> > app-emacs/fff (which is the Emacs equivalent of app-vim/locateopen)
> > to the Emacs overlay; it will be moved to the tree soon.
> how is it required ?  it just runs `locate` at runtime ?

 Yes.  And another packages needing just locate depend on either of the
three or a subset (without mlocate e.g., as it is relatively new to the
tree).  A virtual would simplify it a bit though there would be few
packages depending on it.

V-Li

-- 
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
<URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode

<URL:http://www.faulhammer.org/>

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/locate?

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote:

>> [...] app-emacs/fff [...]

> how is it required ?  it just runs `locate` at runtime ?

Exactly. Pure run-time dependency.

Ulrich
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list