[gentoo-user] Re: virtual/shadow

[Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@gmail.com>]

On 13/03/12 02:23, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 01:54:30 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>
>>>> Anyone care to offer an opinion on what it will take to get PROVIDES
>>>> support in portage?
>>>
>>> IMO, it would take virtuals causing so many headachy breakages that
>>> some devs started keeping up a steady drumbeat on irc and mailing
>>> lists.  When the number of virtual packages gets close to a thousand,
>>> I'd guess that might happen.  Then there would be years of discussion
>>> and GLEP proposals, and by EAPI 207 it should be done.
>>
>> The problem isn't the amount of virtuals.  This doesn't affect the
>> users much.  It's the inability for people to offer replacement
>> packages in overlays.
>
> They could include a modified virtual in the overlay, but your point is
> valid; including the information in the ebuilds is more flexible.

This only works if portage has a virtual.  If it doesn't, you're 
screwed.  You need to also provide modified packages of all ebuilds 
depending on the package you're offering a replacement for.  As you can 
guess, it's not practical.

This leaves only one option; have users put the original package in 
package.provided and emerge your replacement as a non-dep (going in 
"world".)