On 2020-09-08, Neil Bothwick <n...@digimed.co.uk> wrote: > 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.
I'd be happy with a simple message when used with --ask that says a virtual package has pulled in "X" by default, but "Y or Z" could also satisfy that virual. If I don't like the default, I can answer "N", do a one-shot install of my preference, and try again. -- Grant
