1 |
El sáb, 26-09-2009 a las 00:11 +0300, Nikos Chantziaras escribió: |
2 |
> On 09/25/2009 10:49 PM, Sebastián Magrí wrote: |
3 |
> > El vie, 25-09-2009 a las 15:35 +0200, Justin escribió: |
4 |
> >> Nikos Chantziaras schrieb: |
5 |
> >>> On 09/24/2009 11:38 PM, Justin wrote: |
6 |
> >>>> Nikos Chantziaras wrote: |
7 |
> >>>>> I seem to have some fundamental "flaw" in portage. It seems I am not |
8 |
> >>>>> able to write an ebuild that will in effect be able to replace another |
9 |
> >>>>> one but with a different name. |
10 |
> >>>>> |
11 |
> >>>>> With RPMs, no matter how the RPM is named, it has "provides" data in it. |
12 |
> >>>>> Is there some similar mechanism in portage? It seems to me that if |
13 |
> >>>>> the |
14 |
> >>>>> name of an ebuild is changed, then *all* ebuilds depending on it will |
15 |
> >>>>> have to change too. That looks like a PITA to me if it's true. |
16 |
> >>>>> |
17 |
> >>>>> For example, if I have an overlay that provides alternative/altered |
18 |
> >>>>> packages of already existing ones in the portage tree, they will "clash" |
19 |
> >>>>> with portage. Let's assume that my overlay provides an ebuild called |
20 |
> >>>>> "foo-alt" which is a variation of a package in portage called "foo", but |
21 |
> >>>>> is totally compatible with it. What I'm looking for is being able to |
22 |
> >>>>> emerge "foo-alt", but have the ebuild state clearly that it provides the |
23 |
> >>>>> "foo" dependency, so ebuilds depending on "foo" will be satisfied if |
24 |
> >>>>> "foo-alt" is installed but "foo" isn't. |
25 |
> >>>>> |
26 |
> >>>>> Possible? |
27 |
> >>>>> |
28 |
> >>>>> |
29 |
> >>>> Thats's what virtuals are good for. As an example see virtual/jre. |
30 |
> >>>> But in principle you are right. renaming a package is a headache and |
31 |
> >>>> should really be avoided. |
32 |
> >>> |
33 |
> >>> I'm not sure how I can use virtuals to provide an alternative but |
34 |
> >>> completely compatible package. I'll give a straight example: |
35 |
> >>> |
36 |
> >>> In my overlay, there's "x11-libs/qt-opengl-alt". It is a variation of |
37 |
> >>> qt-opengl, providing and *replacing* all files in it. However, if I |
38 |
> >>> unmerge qt-opengl and install qt-opengl-alt instead, even though the |
39 |
> >>> installed packages depending on qt-opengl work perfectly fine with it |
40 |
> >>> (it's fully compatible), an "emerge -uDN world" will try to pull |
41 |
> >>> qt-opengl back in because it thinks it's missing (and this will of |
42 |
> >>> course result in a file collision since qt-opengl-alt is also installed, |
43 |
> >>> providing the same files). |
44 |
> >>> [...] |
45 |
> >> Thats right, the only thing what you can do, is naming your ebuild |
46 |
> >> x11-libs/qt-opengl as well and give it higher version number as the one |
47 |
> >> in the tree. |
48 |
> > |
49 |
> > Why don't just use revision numbers? that's what I've always done... |
50 |
> |
51 |
> Because if a higher version shows up in portage, it will be updated to |
52 |
> that one. |
53 |
> |
54 |
> The only thing that seems to help is to prefix it with an insanely high |
55 |
> number, like "qt-opengl-99.4.5.2". However, this has the drawback that |
56 |
> it only works for just one overlay. It's just a kludge. It's actually |
57 |
> the same package, just a different version of it. The fundamental |
58 |
> problem of being unable to provide* alternative packages that are easy |
59 |
> to use by end users isn't solved. |
60 |
> |
61 |
> * Note that the focus is on "provide" to others, not "use" myself. |
62 |
> |
63 |
> |
64 |
|
65 |
Then you will have to provide all the rdeps with alternative atom in |
66 |
depends I guess... |
67 |
|
68 |
Am I right? |