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

[Duncan]

Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> posted 48B440F6.7020705@g.o,
excerpted below, on  Tue, 26 Aug 2008 10:44:22 -0700:

> Duncan wrote:
>> I therefore believe I like just moving them all to a *virtual*/
>> category better, thus obviating the need for that particular property
>> in the first place.
>
> This has been suggested elsewhere in the thread [1] but I think the the
> PROPERTIES approach will be more flexible and practical for the reasons
> that I've already stated.
>
> [1]
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/
msg_65636255c9d284e51898e826cae09ffd.xml

Maybe it's just 'cause I'm not a dev, but I don't see the reasons you 
state there as a problem.  I specifically addressed the java-virtuals 
category by suggesting that the trigger could be on "virtual" in the 
category, not on the single category "virtual", so java-virtuals would be 
included as would any other *virtual* category, and the java folks 
wouldn't have to move it after all.

Moves as for kde/kde-meta might be an issue, but I don't believe any more 
so than any other package move, and since they're "virtual", possibly 
less so.  The splits, as for qt, might be more confusing, but it's a 
one-time split either now or (for future packages) whenever they go 
virtual, at which point there's a lot of work going into them anyway.

From my perspective, that's not significant additional cost, at least 
compared to the cost associated with the PROPERTIES=virtual in the first 
place.  Given the advantages, including the clarity of having the virtual 
property out where all can see it in the category name itself, I think 
it's worth the relatively small additional cost.

That said, it'd be nice, and to me, worth the cost, particularly as 
compared to the cost of implementing a new property anyway, but since I'm 
not the one implementing it (in either the PM or the packages), feel free 
to override that opinion.

There's also conceivably some times when a virtual/pkg_name might not be 
a proper fit regardless of the property, making the category proposal 
somewhat less flexible.  I can't think of anywhere that such might be the 
case, but that doesn't mean there aren't such cases.  But I still believe 
the benefit of having the property out there for all to see more valuable 
than any potentially lost flexibility.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman