| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Hi all, |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
I'll list the pros and cons of this idea. Please let me know if it's |
| 7 |
worthwhile spending my time putting patch together for 2.0.51. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Pros |
| 10 |
- ---- |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
1. All current and future atom and depend syntax is available for specifying a |
| 13 |
virtual. (eg. defaults specifiable based on USE flags, ability to |
| 14 |
require a set of packages) |
| 15 |
2. Versionable virtuals are transparantly supported. |
| 16 |
3. Portage speedups as virtuals tracking and checking becomes unnecessary. |
| 17 |
4. Can co-exist with the current virtual scheme causing no problems with |
| 18 |
backward compatibility. |
| 19 |
5. If implemented before the release of 2.0.51, the cache format change |
| 20 |
becomes unnecessary (for the time being). |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Cons |
| 23 |
- ---- |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
1. Default virtuals can only be specified per architecture rather than |
| 26 |
per profile. |
| 27 |
2. The virtuals that a package provides are not specified in the package |
| 28 |
itself. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Give me a yes or a no as soon as possible, as 2.0.51-final is not too far away |
| 31 |
and if this goes ahead it'll require at least another _pre version. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Regards, |
| 34 |
Jason Stubbs |
| 35 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 36 |
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
iQCVAwUBQN1w7VoikN4/5jfsAQJCiAQAkKi+Z5EJ8va7uFNkpMJwm+shtSVRL5Ue |
| 39 |
d2LGus60AlhdvQfP6fePcQhFkpNKC+v2EjbjqcuvKZBU/LIUDCfwu/6+NkY+o6Fy |
| 40 |
DXBOVjbfaRXJ+Z6fQ88Un8hF099R5rCag0zmfvRkoUwwgVUjcQuvQqahFmVJLp/y |
| 41 |
xhYjtjFJiQ8= |
| 42 |
=kFSD |
| 43 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
-- |
| 46 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives