On Tue, 08 Sep 2020 16:12:38 -0500, Matt Connell (Gmail) wrote: > > It seems odd that when there's multiple ways to satisfy a > > virtual there's now way to "configure" which one you want for when > > that virtual get's pulled in. Maybe I just haven't run into it often > > enough... > > I thought about this myself too. I don't think there's any consistency > to it either. For example, virtual/jdk will pull in icedtea-bin, > whereas virtual/rust pulls in dev-lang/rust. It isn't a big deal (to > me) but I also don't fully understand the motivation for all the > decisions. > > Maybe a thought for a future portage feature setting for virtual > ebuilds, like --prefer-binary-virtuals versus --prefer-nonbinary- > virtuals or something? Just spitballing.
I was thinking along similar lines, or maybe with a prefer-bin USE flag. Alternatively, have portage spit out a warning if a virtual is required and none of its alternatives are installed, but that would spoil running portage non-interactively. Another option would be for each virtual have have a set of USE flags corresponding to its choices, but that could get very messy very quickly. -- Neil Bothwick Next time you wave at me, use more than one finger, please.
pgpyEFlrrfJkj.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
