Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Alexey Sokolov <alexey+gentoo@××××××××.org>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] sys-meta/* to own and control /bin/{cpio,sh,tar,...} symlinks (alternatives-ish)
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2022 01:32:13
Message-Id: b326f265-30fd-36a7-8f7c-5d0028bab2d3@asokolov.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] sys-meta/* to own and control /bin/{cpio,sh,tar,...} symlinks (alternatives-ish) by Ulrich Mueller
1 23.11.2022 16:45, Ulrich Mueller пишет:
2 >>>>>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2022, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
3 >
4 >> The main reason the new category is distasteful to me is because it's
5 >> *so close* to being a virtual. For one, having these packages be
6 >> virtuals would make them somewhat self-explanatory to end users. If
7 >> we're collectively willing to overlook the "no files" bit, are there
8 >> any other reasons to avoid using virtual/ ?
9 >
10 > They have a nonempty installation image and at least one phase function,
11 > therefore they're not virtuals. IIRC there are also some optimisations
12 > for the virtual category in Portage as well as in our QA tools which
13 > rely on this.
14 >
15 > However, I tend to agree that the category should be named app-meta
16 > rather than sys-meta, because chances are that non-system packages will
17 > also make use of it.
18 >
19 > Ulrich
20
21 Since these packages manage symlinks, make it app-symlink?
22
23 --
24 Best regards,
25 Alexey "DarthGandalf" Sokolov

Replies