Vytautas Jakutis kirjoitti:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:00:09 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
> 
>> We want to implement virtuals for Java at some point and for that we
>> need to know the package that provides the virtual because some virtuals
>> can be provided by the JDK or normal packages and this affects the JDK
>> selection at build time. One option is to call into Portage to find this
>> out, but of course Paludis and Pkgcore people most likely don't like
>> this approach. One thing that comes to mind is to allow for virtuals to
>> install files so we can install the provider information in a format
>> easy for us. We need the information in format ${PN}-${SLOT} because
>> that's the way we install in /usr/share. So do you think it's ok for
>> virtuals to install files (we can of course call the category
>> java-virtual/ too), should we call Portage code, or do you have an
>> another idea?
> 
> The virtual ebuilds that utilize JAR service provider discovery mechanism
> (in META-INF/services, from jdk1.4) should install its' API jars and use
> virtual/ category. And those who don't - have to be patched to utilize or
> have to use some special upwards compatibility layer (generate
> some special metadata file and use special eclass)..?
> 

Not really what we I am talking about. This is more ebuild related than
Java platform. For example javax.management does not use the Provider
style but it makes a good candidate for Java virtual ebuild.

Regards,
Petteri