| 1 |
Patrick Lauer: |
| 2 |
> On Saturday 06 September 2014 16:22:46 hasufell wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Anthony G. Basile: |
| 4 |
>>> On 09/06/14 12:12, hasufell wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> Anthony G. Basile: |
| 6 |
>>>>>> And when you do ask, is a package that's "provided" installed, and if |
| 7 |
>>>>>> so, what's its metadata? |
| 8 |
>>>>> |
| 9 |
>>>>> When the package is installed, that data should have been cached. |
| 10 |
>>>> |
| 11 |
>>>> Afaik there is nothing "cached" if you put stuff in package.provided. |
| 12 |
>>>> It's a terrible hack, unless I missed something. |
| 13 |
>>> |
| 14 |
>>> I wasn't sure what Ciaran was talking about there. If its hacky, then |
| 15 |
>>> we certainly don't want to standardize it in the GLEP. |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>> Well, you have to to define what tools can expect from |
| 18 |
>> provided/installed packages. |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>> That means either say "you cannot expect anything, because there might |
| 21 |
>> or might not be metadata" or say "you can expect metadata for any |
| 22 |
>> provided/installed package" in which case package.provided feature has |
| 23 |
>> to be removed from portage. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> "Provided" means "not managed by the package manager" and thus returning |
| 26 |
> "empty metadata" for queries is perfectly fine. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> I don't see why this feature would need to be removed ... |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
You just rephrased "you cannot expect anything, because there might or |
| 32 |
might not be metadata". |
Archives