| 1 |
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 03:01:26 -0700 |
| 2 |
Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On 08/16/2011 02:32 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
> > On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:19:38 -0700 |
| 5 |
> > Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> >>> Isn't that another, ugly, non-PMS hack which makes people think |
| 7 |
> >>> they are creating correct packages? |
| 8 |
> >> |
| 9 |
> >> Are you saying that you'd prefer to have package managers pull in |
| 10 |
> >> redundant packages for not good reason? |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > No, package managers should get things right regardless of whether |
| 13 |
> > something is in the 'virtual/' category or not. If they can't get |
| 14 |
> > things right, then we need to supply them with more data. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Consider the virtual/jre and virtual/jdk case. Suppose that |
| 17 |
> virtual/jdk isn't installed for some reason, but dev-java/sun-jdk |
| 18 |
> which satisfies it is already installed. In this case, unless you |
| 19 |
> know that virtual/jdk is zero-cost, it's not clear that it costs less |
| 20 |
> to install virtual/jdk than to install dev-java/sun-jre-bin. There |
| 21 |
> may be lots of cases like this where zero-cost metadata would be |
| 22 |
> useful. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Uh huh, so rather than adding in a hack, we need a proper way of |
| 25 |
identifying those cases. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives