Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Virtuals revisited (Round 3)
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 15:17:31
Message-Id: 200504080017.32939.jstubbs@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Virtuals revisited (Round 3) by Ciaran McCreesh
1 On Friday 08 April 2005 00:05, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
2 > On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 23:53:38 +0900 Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o>
3 >
4 > wrote:
5 > | > An example of exactly how portage would 'solve' this would be
6 > | > helpful. Would it ask for an unmerge of gvim-6.3 or would it include
7 > | > an upgrade of gvim-6.3 as part of the "emerge ~vim-7"?
8 > |
9 > | Yep something like that. The specifics of what to do in various cases
10 > | such as that one have not been worked out but are irrelevant to the
11 > | glep anyway. The glep only need require that it is handled.
12 >
13 > Better to say *how* it would be handled IMO.
14
15 Yes, it is. But not in this GLEP.
16
17 > | > 3) We don't specify every virtual in every profile thanks to
18 > | > cascades.
19 > |
20 > | And...? I guess you are referring to "profiles must provide a default
21 > | ..." but that _is_ a correct statement. If somebody wants to create a
22 > | new profile that doesn't derive from base, they must specify defaults
23 > | for all the virtuals.
24 >
25 > Serves them right for not deriving from base :)
26
27 In other words, irrelevant.
28
29 > | > 4) Backwards compatibility -- all virtuals ebuilds should include
30 > | > DEPEND=">=portage-2.whatever" as well as the "|| ( foo bar )" stuff.
31 > |
32 > | Why? The virtuals would be no different to regular packages.
33 >
34 > Oh, actually, it's worse than I thought. You can't use virtual/ as the
35 > prefix *at all*.
36 >
37 > ciaranm@snowdrop overlay 0 0.10 $ cat virtual/breakme/breame-1.ebuild
38 > ciaranm@snowdrop overlay 0 0.09 $ cat app-misc/breakme/breakme-1.ebuild
39 > DEPEND="virtual/breakme"
40 > KEYWORDS="x86"
41 > ciaranm@snowdrop overlay 1 0.05 $ FEATURES=-candy emerge
42 > app-misc/breakme -pv
43 >
44 > These are the packages that I would merge, in order:
45 >
46 > Calculating dependencies -
47 > !!! Cannot resolve a virtual package name to an ebuild.
48 > !!! This is a bug, please report it. (virtual/breakme-1)
49 >
50 > AFAIK, virtual can't be removed from categories either...
51
52 Can fix this for portage-2.0.51.20.
53
54 Regards,
55 Jason Stubbs
56 --
57 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Virtuals revisited (Round 3) Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@g.o>