1 |
I *really* hate those virtual dependencies that don't actually satisfy |
2 |
a real dependency, and require manual choice-specific intervention by |
3 |
the user anyway. For example, packages that build external kernel |
4 |
modules tend to depend on virtual/kernel-sources. However, this |
5 |
dependency doesn't make sure that a kernel is built and hence a module |
6 |
can be built against it. The only thing it does is get in the way, |
7 |
like when someone gets a kernel source outside of the package manager, |
8 |
and has to use package.provided to make the package manager happy. |
9 |
|
10 |
A virtual/network-provider package would have exactly the same |
11 |
problem. You'd have to find all packages in portage which can serve as |
12 |
network managers, and even after you do that, someone will be annoyed |
13 |
because he uses something else. Masking unwanted network managers may |
14 |
even be needed to work around intricacies in dependency resolution. I |
15 |
think that a virtual only makes sense when there's some degree of |
16 |
interchangeability, for example, a virtual for all network managers |
17 |
which understand the standard Gentoo network configuration files. But |
18 |
not a virtual for some generic service. We don't have a virtual for an |
19 |
HTTP server or desktop environment, either (AFAIK). |
20 |
|
21 |
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 12:51 AM, Carlos Silva <r3pek@×××××.org> wrote: |
22 |
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
23 |
>> |
24 |
>> <snip> |
25 |
> |
26 |
> |
27 |
> Maybe I was miss understood here. I know that there are tons of ways to have |
28 |
> gentoo *running* in a box without it having network connection. The thing is |
29 |
> that makes like 0.01% of the total installs. It's not a default install, it |
30 |
> isn't on any gentoo manual I know of (besides the chroot one, but I really |
31 |
> don't consider that an installation), and most importantly, AFAIK, it's not |
32 |
> something any John Doe would do. Offline installations and "runtimes" are |
33 |
> for geeks that use linux for a long time and know how the system work and |
34 |
> have the knowledge to build a stage4 or chroot and move it to another box. |
35 |
> It's not something technically difficult for us "geeks", but would take ages |
36 |
> for some non-geek to do it. |
37 |
> Hell, a friend of mine normally calls me when he needs to do something to |
38 |
> his box other that "pacman <something>" (yeah, he's on arch) and he's using |
39 |
> linux for some time now. |
40 |
> |
41 |
> The bottom line here is, does @system have to have virtual/network-provider? |
42 |
> - Yes -> Make it RDEPEND; |
43 |
> - No -> don't care and just set some use flags. |
44 |
> |
45 |
> The question above is more a political one than technical. Everyone here |
46 |
> knows that a system doesn't have to have networking support for it to boot, |
47 |
> we can't even guarantee that networking support is in the kernel (at least I |
48 |
> don't see it using kernel-*.eclass), but is it a safe default meaning that |
49 |
> 99% or more of the people will use or *need* it? <--- political |
50 |
> |
51 |
> Sorry if I was too long on this :) |