Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [RFC] PROPERTIES=virtual for meta-packages (clarification of definition)
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 02:33:58
Message-Id: g9cvtv$nfp$1@ger.gmane.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] PROPERTIES=virtual for meta-packages (clarification of definition) by Ciaran McCreesh
1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
2
3 > On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 10:59:41 +0100
4 > Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote:
5 >> I concur that it makes a lot of sense, fitting in exactly with the
6 >> meaning originally given. That it means 'zero-install-cost' is
7 >> neither here nor there imo; 'virtual' is a well understood terms for
8 >> the same thing: an ebuild that doesn't in itself install anything.
9 >
10 > Except that that's not what it's being used to mean. It's being used to
11 > mean "the cost of selecting this when doing dependency resolution cost
12 > analysis is zero", which is an entirely different thing.
13 >
14 So it's zero-resolution-cost now? Yes, that *is* different (although I'd use
15 free-resolve. "free" is well understood as often meaning "zero-cost," which
16 isn't a phrase most English-speaking people use. It only has meaning within
17 the PROPERTIES variable, so it's not going to clash with anything.)
18
19 'Since new-style virtuals are a type of "meta-package", I'd prefer that we
20 introduce some type of package metadata into the EAPI that distiguishes
21 meta-packages (those that do not install anything) from normal packages.'[1]
22
23 >> It's clearly something that can be useful across the tree, and can
24 >> apply to an ebuild as opposed to a package. Forcing a category (or a
25 >> pkgmove which is a pita aiui) seems inelegant (and doesn't enable the
26 >> second use-case); the property is far more appropriate, and as you
27 >> say, 'virtual' is less confusing for a user than 'zero-install-cost',
28 >> especially within Gentoo.
29 >
30 > Users don't need to see it. Heck, most developers don't need to see it.
31 >
32 Well any dev using it will do, and I believe most of them start out as
33 users. Anyone reading the ebuild will see it, and the fact that it's a
34 well-understood term, within Gentoo at least[2], makes it easier for the PM
35 user-base to work with.
36
37 It's a cultural "people understand this already" point as opposed to a
38 technical make-it-as-explicit-as-we-can one.
39
40 That it's easier to scan and type is a bonus.
41
42 [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=141118#c5 (bug has previously
43 been cited as part of the motivation for this property.)
44 [2] Of course for a new project, one could use whichever term one felt like,
45 since users would be expecting a divergent codebase. Heck, it might even be
46 worth changing names of stuff just for the sake of appearing shiny (or to
47 kill backward-compatibility, or make it harder for people to make the
48 mental switch back. Every little helps.)

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [RFC] PROPERTIES=virtual for meta-packages (clarification of definition) Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>