From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KQc1e-0007TI-0Y for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 06 Aug 2008 05:57:34 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 542FAE05EC; Wed, 6 Aug 2008 05:57:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29F73E05EC for ; Wed, 6 Aug 2008 05:57:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.22.10] (ip68-4-152-120.oc.oc.cox.net [68.4.152.120]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D87367598 for ; Wed, 6 Aug 2008 05:57:31 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <48993D48.8010904@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 22:57:28 -0700 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080707) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New PROPERTIES=virtual value to identify meta-packages? References: <4899335F.1000803@gentoo.org> <20080806063026.47f89505@snowcone> In-Reply-To: <20080806063026.47f89505@snowcone> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 2cfa84b5-dc9c-47aa-a392-b6ff9c9f0656 X-Archives-Hash: 8e1cae5d4ff79330d8c86df8fd6e9c16 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 22:15:11 -0700 > Zac Medico wrote: >> Does this seem like a desirable way to represent the "virtual" >> attribute? Any suggestions? > > Again, I'm not so sure that this doesn't represent multiple separable > concepts. It seems to imply: > > * that the install cost is effectively zero > * that the resolution cost is effectively zero > * that the package does not install any files > * that the package does not use any of the (normal?) ebuild phases, and > so does not require exclusive pkg_* execution or pkg_* system state > preservation. > Can't we just treat them like other ebuilds except for the thing about dependencies? Perhaps more fine-grained attributes could be added for additional specificity. Zac -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkiZPUcACgkQ/ejvha5XGaMEaQCgxq1kW+OJ5tZwPFXXI0rWKmRc PQEAnA7bRCfM/w6eq5p9eS8N7lSQYG7r =ghiB -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----