| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:28:09 -0800 Donnie Berkholz |
| 3 |
> <spyderous@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> | Yes, for all 3 people who have a clue what it means when virtual/x11 |
| 5 |
> | gets pulled in. How many users do you seriously think will have a clue |
| 6 |
> | and think "Oh, virtual/x11 is getting pulled in here. I must have a |
| 7 |
> | package that isn't ported to modular X somewhere in this list. Let me |
| 8 |
> | track it down and file a bug."? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> When users suddenly see lots of extra X packages being pulled in that |
| 11 |
> they don't need, it'll be rather obvious (and trivial to track down |
| 12 |
> with --tree). Especially if it's documented somewhere that "packages |
| 13 |
> that suddenly pull in lots of extra X packages usually means porting |
| 14 |
> needed". |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Where do they define "lots"? Many packages will legitimately pull in a |
| 17 |
large quantity of libs or apps that are not installed by someone |
| 18 |
emerging xorg-server, e.g. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> | > * The clean solution is the solution originally proposed to this |
| 21 |
> | > list, and the reason we are using new style virtuals. |
| 22 |
> | |
| 23 |
> | No, this is wrong. The reason we are using new style virtuals is so we |
| 24 |
> | could have a versioning in what provides virtual/x11. Namely, 6.8 or |
| 25 |
> | older. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Uh, given that you can do that with old style virtuals, methinks that |
| 28 |
> isn't the case... |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Really? It's certainly not made clear. Has the ability existed for long? |
| 31 |
I can only find a single example of it in the virtuals files, which was |
| 32 |
added last summer. I don't make a habit of browsing through profiles |
| 33 |
every few months to see whether some new undocumented feature has appeared. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
There are no existing examples anywhere in the documentation I've seen, |
| 36 |
and only a vague hint that virtuals could be any DEPEND atom. Given that |
| 37 |
virtual dependencies couldn't work properly with versions, it was a |
| 38 |
carryover that virtuals could also not be provided by versioned things. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
I guarantee you that adding all of modular X to the virtual/x11 will |
| 41 |
make this drag out for years, and THAT is unacceptable to me. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Thanks, |
| 44 |
Donnie |
Archives