Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:28:09 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Yes, for all 3 people who have a clue what it means when virtual/x11
> | gets pulled in. How many users do you seriously think will have a clue
> | and think "Oh, virtual/x11 is getting pulled in here. I must have a
> | package that isn't ported to modular X somewhere in this list. Let me
> | track it down and file a bug."?
> 
> When users suddenly see lots of extra X packages being pulled in that
> they don't need, it'll be rather obvious (and trivial to track down
> with --tree). Especially if it's documented somewhere that "packages
> that suddenly pull in lots of extra X packages usually means porting
> needed".

Where do they define "lots"? Many packages will legitimately pull in a
large quantity of libs or apps that are not installed by someone
emerging xorg-server, e.g.

> | > * The clean solution is the solution originally proposed to this
> | > list, and the reason we are using new style virtuals.
> | 
> | No, this is wrong. The reason we are using new style virtuals is so we
> | could have a versioning in what provides virtual/x11. Namely, 6.8 or
> | older.
> 
> Uh, given that you can do that with old style virtuals, methinks that
> isn't the case...

Really? It's certainly not made clear. Has the ability existed for long?
I can only find a single example of it in the virtuals files, which was
added last summer. I don't make a habit of browsing through profiles
every few months to see whether some new undocumented feature has appeared.

There are no existing examples anywhere in the documentation I've seen,
and only a vague hint that virtuals could be any DEPEND atom. Given that
virtual dependencies couldn't work properly with versions, it was a
carryover that virtuals could also not be provided by versioned things.

I guarantee you that adding all of modular X to the virtual/x11 will
make this drag out for years, and THAT is unacceptable to me.

Thanks,
Donnie

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to