Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] PROPERTIES=virtual for meta-packages (clarification of definition)

[Michal Kurgan]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 11:01:01 -0700
Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote:

> Michal Kurgan wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 14:01:48 -0700
> > Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi everyone,
> >>
> >> Since there were some questions about ambiguity in the meaning of
> >> the proposed PROPERTIES=virtual [1] value, we need to clarify it.
> >>
> >> [ ... ]
> >>
> >> Ebuilds that exhibit the "virtual" property commonly serve as a
> >> layer of indirection in dependencies. All of the ebuilds in the
> >> existing "virtual" category [4] should be eligible to define
> >> PROPERTIES=virtual. If the ebuilds in the virtual category were the
> >> only ones that exhibited this "virtual" property, then the
> >> information that PROPERTIES=virtual represents could simply be
> >> inferred from membership of that category. However, existence of
> >> meta-packages in the "java-virtuals" category [5], among others,
> >> makes it useful to introduce the "virtual" property as a means to
> >> identify these ebuilds. Note that some packages, such as x11-libs/qt
> >> [6], exhibit this property for some versions and not others. So, in
> >> some cases it may be useful to be able to specify the "virtual"
> >> property separately for different ebuild versions.
> >>
> >
> > Wouldn't it be more appropriate to just move the "offending" ebuilds to
> > virtual category? e.g. virtual/qt, etc.
> >
>
> A package move doesn't seem very practical given that the "virtual"
> property varies from one version to the next. I suppose it could be
> done as a split where older versions continue to exist as
> x11-libs/qt and newer versions exist as virtual/qt.

Exactly. I think that this distinction is more clear, both for users and
developers. You've got the idea about package just from its name, not
internal structure such as PROPERTIES or DESCRIPTION variables.

> If we take that approach then you'll have to convince the java team to
> combine the whole java-virtuals category [1] into the virtual category. The
> same goes for any other meta-packages such as kde-meta-* or whatnot.
>
> [1] http://packages.gentoo.org/category/java-virtuals

Hmm... looks like though work, but will try at least. Thanks for hint.

If java hears that, what do you think about that? Are there any problems
with doing such migration?

> >> - --
> >> Thanks,
> >> Zac
> - --
> Thanks,
> Zac

-- 
Michal Kurgan
http://dev.gentoo.org/~moloh