| 1 |
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:00:09 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> We want to implement virtuals for Java at some point and for that we |
| 4 |
> need to know the package that provides the virtual because some virtuals |
| 5 |
> can be provided by the JDK or normal packages and this affects the JDK |
| 6 |
> selection at build time. One option is to call into Portage to find this |
| 7 |
> out, but of course Paludis and Pkgcore people most likely don't like |
| 8 |
> this approach. One thing that comes to mind is to allow for virtuals to |
| 9 |
> install files so we can install the provider information in a format |
| 10 |
> easy for us. We need the information in format ${PN}-${SLOT} because |
| 11 |
> that's the way we install in /usr/share. So do you think it's ok for |
| 12 |
> virtuals to install files (we can of course call the category |
| 13 |
> java-virtual/ too), should we call Portage code, or do you have an |
| 14 |
> another idea? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The virtual ebuilds that utilize JAR service provider discovery mechanism |
| 17 |
(in META-INF/services, from jdk1.4) should install its' API jars and use |
| 18 |
virtual/ category. And those who don't - have to be patched to utilize or |
| 19 |
have to use some special upwards compatibility layer (generate |
| 20 |
some special metadata file and use special eclass)..? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Vytautas Jakutis |
| 24 |
vytautas@×××××××××.com |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives