| 1 |
On 12/17/2010 08:08 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> Old-style virtuals are extremely messy and introduce an awful lot of |
| 3 |
> complexity. They were supposed to be on the way out several years ago, |
| 4 |
> with GLEP 37, but that seems to have stalled. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Is there anything in particular holding back replacing most or all of |
| 7 |
> the remaining old-style virtuals with new 'package' virtuals? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I would create a tracker bug for getting rid of the old style things. |
| 11 |
Then perhaps EAPI 5 could not support old style virtuals. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> There's still that stupid !virtual/blah thing to deal with. Old style |
| 15 |
> virtual providers are allowed to block their own virtual to mean "there |
| 16 |
> must not be any other provider of this installed" (although it's not |
| 17 |
> clear what that means if anything other than a simple !virtual/pkg is |
| 18 |
> used). Anything doing that would now have to explicitly list its own |
| 19 |
> blocks. Arguably, this is a good thing, since you'd have to say exactly |
| 20 |
> what you do and don't work with. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
The cases where this is needed could declare the full list of providers |
| 24 |
in an eclass. Are there any problems with this approach besides the |
| 25 |
increased maintenance burden? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Regards, |
| 28 |
Petteri |
Archives