| 1 |
@Robin: This patch reverts the changes from bug 161003. Maybe this |
| 2 |
constraint is not needed anymore? |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 12/05/2014 08:43 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 5 |
> With new-style virtuals, there is no reason to enforce special rules to |
| 6 |
> virtuals in package.provided. If user wishes to implicitly provide |
| 7 |
> the virual package, we should not forbid him. Of course, he knows |
| 8 |
> the implications. |
| 9 |
> --- |
| 10 |
> man/portage.5 | 7 ------- |
| 11 |
> pym/portage/package/ebuild/config.py | 6 ------ |
| 12 |
> 2 files changed, 13 deletions(-) |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> diff --git a/man/portage.5 b/man/portage.5 |
| 15 |
> index 150294b..46835b5 100644 |
| 16 |
> --- a/man/portage.5 |
| 17 |
> +++ b/man/portage.5 |
| 18 |
> @@ -400,13 +400,6 @@ entries may cause installed packages satisfying equivalent dependencies |
| 19 |
> to be removed by \fBemerge\fR(1) \fB\-\-depclean\fR actions (see the |
| 20 |
> \fBACTIONS\fR section of the \fBemerge\fR(1) man page for more information). |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> -Virtual packages (virtual/*) should not be specified in package.provided, |
| 23 |
> -since virtual packages themselves do not provide any files, and |
| 24 |
> -package.provided is intended to represent packages that do provide files. |
| 25 |
> -Depending on the type of virtual, it may be necessary to add an entry to the |
| 26 |
> -virtuals file and/or add a package that satisfies a virtual to |
| 27 |
> -package.provided. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
LGTM. I guess we can mark bug 161003 resolved as "OBSOLETE". |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161003 |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Thanks, |
| 34 |
Zac |
Archives