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 1KZclK-0003cu-IR for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 31 Aug 2008 02:33:58 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1316DE0218; Sun, 31 Aug 2008 02:33:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC8C8E0218 for ; Sun, 31 Aug 2008 02:33:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4CBD670EB for ; Sun, 31 Aug 2008 02:33:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -1.025 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.025 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.507, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oHr2bi1JDa9b for ; Sun, 31 Aug 2008 02:33:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E33C2676C2 for ; Sun, 31 Aug 2008 02:33:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1KZcl4-000576-Om for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Sun, 31 Aug 2008 02:33:42 +0000 Received: from 91.85.176.73 ([91.85.176.73]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 31 Aug 2008 02:33:42 +0000 Received: from slong by 91.85.176.73 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 31 Aug 2008 02:33:42 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Steve Long Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [RFC] PROPERTIES=virtual for meta-packages (clarification of definition) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 03:29:16 +0100 Message-ID: References: <48B1CC3C.2000103@gentoo.org> <20080825201217.194fecad@googlemail.com> <48B309C2.1060204@gentoo.org> <200808252103.27006.levertond@googlemail.com> <20080826142044.28367055@googlemail.com> <20080830132324.1e70134f@googlemail.com> 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 91.85.176.73 User-Agent: KNode/0.10.9 Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: 408d66e3-3c5a-43fe-a97a-8f7ccdecaaa5 X-Archives-Hash: 5a30bbf6d2724167fb0d286870f836fd Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 10:59:41 +0100 > Steve Long wrote: >> I concur that it makes a lot of sense, fitting in exactly with the >> meaning originally given. That it means 'zero-install-cost' is >> neither here nor there imo; 'virtual' is a well understood terms for >> the same thing: an ebuild that doesn't in itself install anything. > > Except that that's not what it's being used to mean. It's being used to > mean "the cost of selecting this when doing dependency resolution cost > analysis is zero", which is an entirely different thing. > So it's zero-resolution-cost now? Yes, that *is* different (although I'd use free-resolve. "free" is well understood as often meaning "zero-cost," which isn't a phrase most English-speaking people use. It only has meaning within the PROPERTIES variable, so it's not going to clash with anything.) 'Since new-style virtuals are a type of "meta-package", I'd prefer that we introduce some type of package metadata into the EAPI that distiguishes meta-packages (those that do not install anything) from normal packages.'[1] >> It's clearly something that can be useful across the tree, and can >> apply to an ebuild as opposed to a package. Forcing a category (or a >> pkgmove which is a pita aiui) seems inelegant (and doesn't enable the >> second use-case); the property is far more appropriate, and as you >> say, 'virtual' is less confusing for a user than 'zero-install-cost', >> especially within Gentoo. > > Users don't need to see it. Heck, most developers don't need to see it. > Well any dev using it will do, and I believe most of them start out as users. Anyone reading the ebuild will see it, and the fact that it's a well-understood term, within Gentoo at least[2], makes it easier for the PM user-base to work with. It's a cultural "people understand this already" point as opposed to a technical make-it-as-explicit-as-we-can one. That it's easier to scan and type is a bonus. [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=141118#c5 (bug has previously been cited as part of the motivation for this property.) [2] Of course for a new project, one could use whichever term one felt like, since users would be expecting a divergent codebase. Heck, it might even be worth changing names of stuff just for the sake of appearing shiny (or to kill backward-compatibility, or make it harder for people to make the mental switch back. Every little helps.)