Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] sys-meta/* to own and control /bin/{cpio,sh,tar,...} symlinks (alternatives-ish)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2022 14:58:24
Message-Id: 491944fb719ad4e67a9838a2a73abb0ea3672dab.camel@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] sys-meta/* to own and control /bin/{cpio,sh,tar,...} symlinks (alternatives-ish) by "Michał Górny"
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.

Replies