Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: splitting virtual/

[Michał Górny]

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 01:10:48 -0700
Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote:

> On 08/16/2011 12:40 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:26:41 -0700
> > Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote:
> >> On 08/16/2011 12:01 AM, Micha? Górny wrote:
> >>>>> Considering the number of different virtuals in this category,
> >>>>> maybe it would be a good idea to split it a little? What I'm
> >>>>> proposing is maybe creating some kind of '*-virtual' categories.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For example, half of the current virtuals are prefixed with
> >>>>> 'perl-'. Maybe they could be transformed into 'perl-virtual/*'?
> >>>>
> >>>> If you're going to do that, then I'd suggest giving them some
> >>>> sort of tag that the package manager can rely upon in order to
> >>>> identify them as virtuals. For example, we could have the
> >>>> ebuilds set PROPERTIES=virtual [2], or we could simply specify
> >>>> (in PMS) that any category whose name matches the '*-virtual'
> >>>> pattern will contain virtuals.
> >>>
> >>> Doesn't DEFINED_PHASES==- serve that purpose nowadays?
> >
> >> Actually, since EAPI 4 we have default src_install, so it's
> >> possible to have ebuilds that have no defined phases but still
> >> install stuff.
> >
> > + empty SRC_URI? I guess something like the workdir fallback
> > conditions in PMS.
>
> When you consider that "live" ebuilds can have empty SRC_URI and
> download things during src_unpack, it seems more sensible and simple
> to introduce PROPERTIES="live" or something like it. That way, we'll
> have a simple boolean flag and won't have to make any fragile
> assumptions.

Live ebuild have to redefine src_unpack() which makes DEFINED_PHASES!=-.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny