1 |
On Wed, 2022-11-23 at 15:37 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> |
4 |
> |
5 |
> PMS doesn't say anything about (new-style) virtuals. It's a Gentoo |
6 |
> policy entirely. |
7 |
|
8 |
This is listed as a retroactive change, |
9 |
|
10 |
Note: A ‘new-style virtual’ is a normal package that installs no |
11 |
files and uses its dependency requirements to pull in a ‘provider’. |
12 |
|
13 |
|
14 |
> Do you have any specific concerns about having an extra category? |
15 |
> I'm not aware of any real costs involved, or real reasons to use |
16 |
> categories scarcely. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> ... |
19 |
> |
20 |
> I don't really care how it's named. I've chosen "sys-" because in my |
21 |
> PoC it happens to control tools that are part of the base system. |
22 |
> I suppose we could also want it for less important stuff like notify- |
23 |
> send (though I guess I'll lastrite that eselect anyway). I think we |
24 |
> should just use one category for all of them, and I'm open to a |
25 |
> better name. |
26 |
|
27 |
The main reason the new category is distasteful to me is because it's |
28 |
*so close* to being a virtual. For one, having these packages be |
29 |
virtuals would make them somewhat self-explanatory to end users. If |
30 |
we're collectively willing to overlook the "no files" bit, are there |
31 |
any other reasons to avoid using virtual/ ? |
32 |
|
33 |
Regardless, since I specifically called out the "meta" suffix, let me |
34 |
put forward sys-alternatives as an alternative. |