| 1 |
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:19:12 +0200 |
| 2 |
Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 12/03/12 20:05, Bruce Hill, Jr. wrote: |
| 5 |
> > These virtual apps are irritating me, and the fanboi answers in |
| 6 |
> > #gentoo are worse. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > What is the purpose of virtual/shadow and why would I want it? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Paul's answers covers it, but I'll give an explanation that is the |
| 11 |
> reverse of a fanboi answer. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> The reason we need virtuals is because of a shortcoming in portage: |
| 14 |
> lack of "provides" functionality. RPM packages can tell the package |
| 15 |
> manager what they provide. For example, RPMs for libav and ffmpeg |
| 16 |
> can both use "ffmpeg" as their "provides" field. Portage can't do |
| 17 |
> that, so it needs a new "virtual/ffmpeg" package instead. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Anyone care to offer an opinion on what it will take to get PROVIDES |
| 22 |
support in portage? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Alan McKinnnon |
| 28 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives