On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 03:01:26 -0700 Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 08/16/2011 02:32 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:19:38 -0700
> > Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >>> Isn't that another, ugly, non-PMS hack which makes people think
> >>> they are creating correct packages?
> >>
> >> Are you saying that you'd prefer to have package managers pull in
> >> redundant packages for not good reason?
> >
> > No, package managers should get things right regardless of whether
> > something is in the 'virtual/' category or not. If they can't get
> > things right, then we need to supply them with more data.
>
> Consider the virtual/jre and virtual/jdk case. Suppose that
> virtual/jdk isn't installed for some reason, but dev-java/sun-jdk
> which satisfies it is already installed. In this case, unless you
> know that virtual/jdk is zero-cost, it's not clear that it costs less
> to install virtual/jdk than to install dev-java/sun-jre-bin. There
> may be lots of cases like this where zero-cost metadata would be
> useful.
Maybe virtual/jre & virtual/jdk should me merged into a single ebuild
with USE-switchable behavior? Something like:
RDEPEND="jdk? ( || ( a-jdk b-jdk ) )
!jdk? ( || ( a-jre b-jre a-jdk b-jdk ) )"
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
