Re: [gentoo-dev] reconciling new-style virtuals with overlays, was: RDEPENDing on packages from overlays?

["Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn" <chithanh@gentoo.org>]

Zac Medico schrieb:
>> 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?
>   

The idea is that code for old-style virtuals can be removed from the
package manager (which seems to be one of the goals of getting rid of
old-style virtuals).

>> (3) in a future EAPI, package managers are allowed to ignore the
>> old-style virtual dependency for packages which are not already installed
>>     
> 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.
>   

Indeed, the old-style virtual will be a non-existing package in the case
of a package manager which doesn't support them.

>> 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?
>   

Because the package manager might not know about old-style virtuals
during dependency calculation.


Regards,
Chi-Thanh Christopher Nguyen