From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1QDa5y-0008TA-ER for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 10:29:46 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C86871C047; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 10:29:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DD161C033 for ; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 10:29:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.101] (hnvr-4d07ac39.pool.mediaWays.net [77.7.172.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: chithanh) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 39A2C1B4028 for ; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 10:28:59 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4DB2A9CD.7010708@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 12:28:29 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?Q2jDrS1UaGFuaCBDaHJpc3RvcGhlciBOZ3V54buFbg==?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.18) Gecko/20110403 Gentoo/2.0.13 SeaMonkey/2.0.13 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: [gentoo-dev] reconciling new-style virtuals with overlays, was: RDEPENDing on packages from overlays? References: <4DB26C3C.8090602@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <4DB26C3C.8090602@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 27873acdc56460cba7af9a96a8c665a3 Eray Aslan schrieb: > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=364445 > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=364401 > > Basically, there are requests to add packages to RDEPEND in virtual/mda > and virtual/mta that are not in the official tree but in sunrise. > > On one side, *DEPENDing on a package outside the tree doesn't seem > right. I understand that the push to remove old-style virtuals from the main tree is because they cause headaches for the package managers during dependency calculation. I also understand that existing EAPIs will not be amended to forbid old-style virtuals. Would it make sense to do the following: (1) make all new-style virtuals additionally depend on an old-style virtual (a new category might be appropriate) (2) ebuilds in overlays can PROVIDE the old-style virtual (3) in a future EAPI, package managers are allowed to ignore the old-style virtual dependency for packages which are not already installed If directly including installed old-style virtual packages in the dependency calculations is not feasible, (3) could be implemented through modifying package.provided like it is already done for package.{keywords,mask,use} after profile/ updates Regards, Chi-Thanh Christopher Nguyen