Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Anthony G. Basile" <blueness@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Implicit system dependency
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 12:18:44
Message-Id: 5465F3A2.3060704@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Implicit system dependency by Zac Medico
1 On 11/13/14 23:15, Zac Medico wrote:
2 > On 11/13/2014 08:01 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
3 >> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Michael Palimaka <kensington@g.o> wrote:
4 >>> On 14/11/14 11:06, Rich Freeman wrote:
5 >>>> Well, the idea would be to maintain the virtual INSTEAD of @system, or
6 >>>> have @system just pull in the virtual and make some arch-specific
7 >>>> additions.
8 >>> Will that work? Some profiles remove packages from the base @system and
9 >>> replace it with their own implementations (eg. BSD).
10 >> Maybe. The thing is that a package either depends on something or it
11 >> doesn't. If it really does depend on something, then the fact that it
12 >> isn't available on BSD/etc isn't going to magically make the package
13 >> work. We just loosely define system dependencies in a way that makes
14 >> them work 98% of the time, basically accepting that things are going
15 >> to break and we get away with it because few of our users actually run
16 >> on BSD/etc.
17 >>
18 >> If it is just a matter of preference then a profile could install an
19 >> alternative package that is in a virtual. However, this won't work if
20 >> everybody still uses some convenience virtual that pulls in bash/etc
21 >> and the BSD folks don't want to install bash unnecessarily.
22 > Maybe I'm missing something, but if you are using virtuals, then you can
23 > make the deps conditional on profile forced/masked flags like
24 > userland_BSD and userland_GNU if necessary. These behave like normal USE
25 > flags, aside from the fact the they are forced or masked by profiles.
26
27 Sorry Zac, I posted my reply before I read this. This is essentially
28 the point I was making. However, I think this will be cumbersome. With
29 the current way we do things, its easy to delete packages from @system
30 by just doing '-*sys-apps/man-pages' (for example) in a profile's
31 packages file. It is not so easy to delete from a DEPEND string, so I
32 foresee some tricky if logic here.
33
34 --
35 Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
36 Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
37 E-Mail : blueness@g.o
38 GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA
39 GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Implicit system dependency Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Implicit system dependency Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@g.o>