On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 01:10:48 -0700 Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 08/16/2011 12:40 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:26:41 -0700 > > Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> On 08/16/2011 12:01 AM, Micha? Górny wrote: > >>>>> Considering the number of different virtuals in this category, > >>>>> maybe it would be a good idea to split it a little? What I'm > >>>>> proposing is maybe creating some kind of '*-virtual' categories. > >>>>> > >>>>> For example, half of the current virtuals are prefixed with > >>>>> 'perl-'. Maybe they could be transformed into 'perl-virtual/*'? > >>>> > >>>> If you're going to do that, then I'd suggest giving them some > >>>> sort of tag that the package manager can rely upon in order to > >>>> identify them as virtuals. For example, we could have the > >>>> ebuilds set PROPERTIES=virtual [2], or we could simply specify > >>>> (in PMS) that any category whose name matches the '*-virtual' > >>>> pattern will contain virtuals. > >>> > >>> Doesn't DEFINED_PHASES==- serve that purpose nowadays? > > > >> Actually, since EAPI 4 we have default src_install, so it's > >> possible to have ebuilds that have no defined phases but still > >> install stuff. > > > > + empty SRC_URI? I guess something like the workdir fallback > > conditions in PMS. > > When you consider that "live" ebuilds can have empty SRC_URI and > download things during src_unpack, it seems more sensible and simple > to introduce PROPERTIES="live" or something like it. That way, we'll > have a simple boolean flag and won't have to make any fragile > assumptions. Live ebuild have to redefine src_unpack() which makes DEFINED_PHASES!=-. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
