| 1 |
On 08/16/2011 02:32 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:19:38 -0700 |
| 3 |
> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> Isn't that another, ugly, non-PMS hack which makes people think they |
| 5 |
>>> are creating correct packages? |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> Are you saying that you'd prefer to have package managers pull in |
| 8 |
>> redundant packages for not good reason? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> No, package managers should get things right regardless of whether |
| 11 |
> something is in the 'virtual/' category or not. If they can't get |
| 12 |
> things right, then we need to supply them with more data. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Consider the virtual/jre and virtual/jdk case. Suppose that virtual/jdk |
| 15 |
isn't installed for some reason, but dev-java/sun-jdk which satisfies it |
| 16 |
is already installed. In this case, unless you know that virtual/jdk is |
| 17 |
zero-cost, it's not clear that it costs less to install virtual/jdk than |
| 18 |
to install dev-java/sun-jre-bin. There may be lots of cases like this |
| 19 |
where zero-cost metadata would be useful. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> And most importantly, you need to stop adding in short-sighted hacks to |
| 22 |
> 'fix' one bug at the expense of consistency and quality. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Call it what you want, but the behavior that I implemented for bug |
| 25 |
141118 seems relatively optimal to me. |
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Thanks, |
| 28 |
Zac |
Archives