Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: splitting virtual/

[Zac Medico]

On 08/16/2011 01:29 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 01:10:48 -0700
> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote:
>
>> On 08/16/2011 12:40 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:26:41 -0700
>>> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote:
>>>> On 08/16/2011 12:01 AM, Micha? Górny wrote:
>>>>>>> Considering the number of different virtuals in this category,
>>>>>>> maybe it would be a good idea to split it a little? What I'm
>>>>>>> proposing is maybe creating some kind of '*-virtual' categories.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For example, half of the current virtuals are prefixed with
>>>>>>> 'perl-'. Maybe they could be transformed into 'perl-virtual/*'?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you're going to do that, then I'd suggest giving them some
>>>>>> sort of tag that the package manager can rely upon in order to
>>>>>> identify them as virtuals. For example, we could have the
>>>>>> ebuilds set PROPERTIES=virtual [2], or we could simply specify
>>>>>> (in PMS) that any category whose name matches the '*-virtual'
>>>>>> pattern will contain virtuals.
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't DEFINED_PHASES==- serve that purpose nowadays?
>>>
>>>> Actually, since EAPI 4 we have default src_install, so it's
>>>> possible to have ebuilds that have no defined phases but still
>>>> install stuff.
>>>
>>> + empty SRC_URI? I guess something like the workdir fallback
>>> conditions in PMS.
>>
>> When you consider that "live" ebuilds can have empty SRC_URI and
>> download things during src_unpack, it seems more sensible and simple
>> to introduce PROPERTIES="live" or something like it. That way, we'll
>> have a simple boolean flag and won't have to make any fragile
>> assumptions.
>
> Live ebuild have to redefine src_unpack() which makes DEFINED_PHASES!=-.

Sure, but the fact that you have to check two variables like that and
make these fragile assumptions makes it seem like we're building a
fragile kludge rather than something that's really practical.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac