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 1QDapn-0004cH-HS for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 11:17:07 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 045611C0BE; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 11:16:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 450BE1C033 for ; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 11:16:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.26.4] (ip98-164-193-252.oc.oc.cox.net [98.164.193.252]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: zmedico) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6EFC11B4017 for ; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 11:16:25 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4DB2B4EC.3070901@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 04:15:56 -0700 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110403 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.9 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] reconciling new-style virtuals with overlays, was: RDEPENDing on packages from overlays? References: <4DB26C3C.8090602@gentoo.org> <4DB2A9CD.7010708@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <4DB2A9CD.7010708@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 4802d5f0eb67d00a0831210f99e6f4c4 On 04/23/2011 03:28 AM, Ch=C3=AD-Thanh Christopher Nguy=E1=BB=85n wrote: > Eray Aslan schrieb: >> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D364445 >> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D364401 >> >> Basically, there are requests to add packages to RDEPEND in virtual/md= a >> 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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 It seems like new-style virtual would be introducing complexity without adding any value here. Why not just use a pure 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 install= ed I'm not sure what you mean here. In || dependencies, it's normal to ignore choices that are masked or unavailable, so I'm not sure that you're suggesting anything different from the existing || behavior. > 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 Again, I'm not sure that I understand the point of this. Since || dependencies already ignore unavailable or masked choices, why would package.provided be needed? --=20 Thanks, Zac