| 1 |
>>>>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2022, Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> The main reason the new category is distasteful to me is because it's |
| 4 |
> *so close* to being a virtual. For one, having these packages be |
| 5 |
> virtuals would make them somewhat self-explanatory to end users. If |
| 6 |
> we're collectively willing to overlook the "no files" bit, are there |
| 7 |
> any other reasons to avoid using virtual/ ? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
They have a nonempty installation image and at least one phase function, |
| 10 |
therefore they're not virtuals. IIRC there are also some optimisations |
| 11 |
for the virtual category in Portage as well as in our QA tools which |
| 12 |
rely on this. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
However, I tend to agree that the category should be named app-meta |
| 15 |
rather than sys-meta, because chances are that non-system packages will |
| 16 |
also make use of it. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Ulrich |
Archives