| 1 |
Frank Peters <frank.peters@×××××××.net> skribis: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 26 May 2010 18:25:52 -0500 |
| 3 |
> Barry Schwartz <chemoelectric@×××××××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > An "phony" ebuild in an overlay would do what you wanted, I think. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Maybe. I have not tried it. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I don't want to be overly critical of Gentoo (after all, it's the best |
| 13 |
> thing that's happened to my Linux computing universe in a long while), but |
| 14 |
> it seems that package.provided needs some extra capability. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> There are some requests on bugs.gentoo.org that package.provided be |
| 17 |
> extended in various ways. In my opinion, package.provided should accomplish |
| 18 |
> just what the name implies. It should indicate that the Gentoo user |
| 19 |
> has compiled his own version of an ebuild (for whatever reason) and |
| 20 |
> if a newer ebuild exists, regardless of dependencies, this should be |
| 21 |
> indicated to the user (as it is with a normally emerged ebuild). |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> These are just my opinions. Whatever course of action the Gentoo |
| 24 |
> developers take is fine with me. Gentoo has improved my Linux experience |
| 25 |
> so much that it's hard to find any complaint. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Paludis has a different approach to "provided" packages, but |
| 28 |
personally I don't like it. Others may. |
Archives