On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 11:26 +0100, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote: > So, in short, dropping the "virtuals" file is a regression imho, > because it makes portage behavior less deterministic; it will > depend more on the history of user actions (calls to emerge), and > less on user prefs, making it harder to understand and control.
What's been discussed, but isn't in the GLEP draft, is a /etc/portage file to let you override metapackage dependencies. It's not in there because the syntax and implementation hasn't been worked out fully, but it should work akin to /etc/portage/virtuals. > Oh, and btw, this lack of "virtuals" prefs file may also be a > problem for official profiles. For instance, I see that "base" > currently has "virtual/jdk dev-java/blackdown-jdk", whereas ppc > profiles override that with "virtual/jdk dev-java/ibm-jdk-bin". > And i guess they have good reasons to do so... How will that be > handled with metapkgs? By having numerous "arch? ( ... )" in the > DEPEND string? It could be done with arch? ( ) in the DEPEND string, or just by not keywording packages on a given arch, or masking them in the profile. The dependency resolver is already fully able to cope with that sort of situation, whereas the current virtuals mechanism isn't. -- [email protected] mailing list
