| 1 |
On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 11:26 +0100, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote: |
| 2 |
> So, in short, dropping the "virtuals" file is a regression imho, |
| 3 |
> because it makes portage behavior less deterministic; it will |
| 4 |
> depend more on the history of user actions (calls to emerge), and |
| 5 |
> less on user prefs, making it harder to understand and control. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
What's been discussed, but isn't in the GLEP draft, is a /etc/portage |
| 8 |
file to let you override metapackage dependencies. It's not in there |
| 9 |
because the syntax and implementation hasn't been worked out fully, but |
| 10 |
it should work akin to /etc/portage/virtuals. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> Oh, and btw, this lack of "virtuals" prefs file may also be a |
| 13 |
> problem for official profiles. For instance, I see that "base" |
| 14 |
> currently has "virtual/jdk dev-java/blackdown-jdk", whereas ppc |
| 15 |
> profiles override that with "virtual/jdk dev-java/ibm-jdk-bin". |
| 16 |
> And i guess they have good reasons to do so... How will that be |
| 17 |
> handled with metapkgs? By having numerous "arch? ( ... )" in the |
| 18 |
> DEPEND string? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
It could be done with arch? ( ) in the DEPEND string, or just by not |
| 21 |
keywording packages on a given arch, or masking them in the profile. The |
| 22 |
dependency resolver is already fully able to cope with that sort of |
| 23 |
situation, whereas the current virtuals mechanism isn't. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives