Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] Allow virtuals in package.provided

[Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org>]

@Robin: This patch reverts the changes from bug 161003. Maybe this
constraint is not needed anymore?

On 12/05/2014 08:43 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> With new-style virtuals, there is no reason to enforce special rules to
> virtuals in package.provided. If user wishes to implicitly provide
> the virual package, we should not forbid him. Of course, he knows
> the implications.
> ---
>  man/portage.5                        | 7 -------
>  pym/portage/package/ebuild/config.py | 6 ------
>  2 files changed, 13 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/man/portage.5 b/man/portage.5
> index 150294b..46835b5 100644
> --- a/man/portage.5
> +++ b/man/portage.5
> @@ -400,13 +400,6 @@ entries may cause installed packages satisfying equivalent dependencies
>  to be removed by \fBemerge\fR(1) \fB\-\-depclean\fR actions (see the
>  \fBACTIONS\fR section of the \fBemerge\fR(1) man page for more information).
>  
> -Virtual packages (virtual/*) should not be specified in package.provided,
> -since virtual packages themselves do not provide any files, and
> -package.provided is intended to represent packages that do provide files.
> -Depending on the type of virtual, it may be necessary to add an entry to the
> -virtuals file and/or add a package that satisfies a virtual to
> -package.provided.

LGTM. I guess we can mark bug 161003 resolved as "OBSOLETE".

[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161003
-- 
Thanks,
Zac