On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 14:26:55 -0600
William Hubbs <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 09:07:20PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> > >   RDEPEND="virtual/tmpfiles"  
> > 
> > 1. I'm wondering if there's a case for making this optional
> > (I'm pretty sure we have USE-conditional installs of tmpfiles, however
> > I'm not sure if we care for 100% exact deps).  
>  
> hmm, use-conditional installs of tmpfiles... should we look into fixing
> those (wrt our practice of always installing small files), or should we
> revisit that whole practice (+1000 for revisiting it).

No, I mean cases like USE=server where some components that need
tmpfiles are installed conditionally. We don't install tmpfiles if
the relevant program is not installed.

> RDEPEND's can't depend on use flags, so I'm not sure how we would make
> this optional.

I would go for TMPFILES_OPTIONAL that would just disable the RDEP
and expect people to define it explicitly. But I guess we can do that
if it ever becomes necessary.

> > 2. I think it would be reasonable to match virtual versions to
> > 'versions' of tmpfiles.d support, i.e. to be able to e.g. >=230 when
> > the file needs new feature that was introduced in systemd-230. But
> > maybe it'd good enough to have additional dependency in ebuild then.
> >   
> 
> I'm not sure about adding an additional dependency to the ebuild. This
> could be handled by bumping the virtual if necessary.

I meant additional dependency on the virtual. Non-versioned in eclass +
versioned in ebuild.


-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>

Attachment: pgp4pSLsUWfQr.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to