| 1 |
Nikos Chantziaras wrote: |
| 2 |
> I seem to have some fundamental "flaw" in portage. It seems I am not |
| 3 |
> able to write an ebuild that will in effect be able to replace another |
| 4 |
> one but with a different name. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> With RPMs, no matter how the RPM is named, it has "provides" data in it. |
| 7 |
> Is there some similar mechanism in portage? It seems to me that if the |
| 8 |
> name of an ebuild is changed, then *all* ebuilds depending on it will |
| 9 |
> have to change too. That looks like a PITA to me if it's true. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> For example, if I have an overlay that provides alternative/altered |
| 12 |
> packages of already existing ones in the portage tree, they will "clash" |
| 13 |
> with portage. Let's assume that my overlay provides an ebuild called |
| 14 |
> "foo-alt" which is a variation of a package in portage called "foo", but |
| 15 |
> is totally compatible with it. What I'm looking for is being able to |
| 16 |
> emerge "foo-alt", but have the ebuild state clearly that it provides the |
| 17 |
> "foo" dependency, so ebuilds depending on "foo" will be satisfied if |
| 18 |
> "foo-alt" is installed but "foo" isn't. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Possible? |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
Thats's what virtuals are good for. As an example see virtual/jre. |
| 24 |
But in principle you are right. renaming a package is a headache and |
| 25 |
should really be avoided. |
Archives