| 1 |
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 14:01:48 -0700 |
| 2 |
Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 5 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Hi everyone, |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Since there were some questions about ambiguity in the meaning of |
| 10 |
> the proposed PROPERTIES=virtual [1] value, we need to clarify it. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> [ ... ] |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Ebuilds that exhibit the "virtual" property commonly serve as a |
| 15 |
> layer of indirection in dependencies. All of the ebuilds in the |
| 16 |
> existing "virtual" category [4] should be eligible to define |
| 17 |
> PROPERTIES=virtual. If the ebuilds in the virtual category were the |
| 18 |
> only ones that exhibited this "virtual" property, then the |
| 19 |
> information that PROPERTIES=virtual represents could simply be |
| 20 |
> inferred from membership of that category. However, existence of |
| 21 |
> meta-packages in the "java-virtuals" category [5], among others, |
| 22 |
> makes it useful to introduce the "virtual" property as a means to |
| 23 |
> identify these ebuilds. Note that some packages, such as x11-libs/qt |
| 24 |
> [6], exhibit this property for some versions and not others. So, in |
| 25 |
> some cases it may be useful to be able to specify the "virtual" |
| 26 |
> property separately for different ebuild versions. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to just move the "offending" ebuilds to |
| 30 |
virtual category? e.g. virtual/qt, etc. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> - -- |
| 33 |
> Thanks, |
| 34 |
> Zac |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Michal Kurgan |
| 38 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~moloh |
Archives