| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh schrieb: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 16:47:37 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn <chithanh@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> What I propose solves the problems that old-style virtuals introduce |
| 6 |
>> in dependency resolution. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
> Not really, because it means we'd have to keep the nasty old code around |
| 9 |
> forever. If we just do away with the things entirely instead then we |
| 10 |
> can pretend they never existed (like we did for ? : dependencies). |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
We can mostly pretend that they never existed. PROVIDE will only be |
| 14 |
relevant during the installation phase. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
>> What other problems do they cause? |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
> DEPEND=">=virtual/blah-2" |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> DEPEND="virtual/blah[foo]" |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> DEPEND="!virtual/that-i-provide" |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> PROVIDE="not-a/virtual" |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
Would be ignored during dependency calculation and become |
| 27 |
not-a/virtual-<version> in package.provided later. |
| 28 |
> best_version virtual/blah |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> The full VDB load required to figure out whether or not a virtual is |
| 31 |
> installed |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Problems I had indeed not taken into account are !virtual/foo |
| 34 |
dependencies and USE flags in package.provided (not allowed yet, bug |
| 35 |
142941). But the former are also not going to work any more if new-style |
| 36 |
virtuals are used instead of old-style, as you block only the virtuals |
| 37 |
and not their providers. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
If the USE flag problem is considered a show-stopper, then I have to |
| 40 |
take back my proposal until bug 142941 is fixed. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Regards, |
| 44 |
Chi-Thanh Christopher Nguyen |
Archives