Re: [gentoo-dev] new-style virtual/editor
On Friday 05 October 2007, Olivier Crête wrote: > On Fri, 2007-05-10 at 20:27 +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote: > > Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > How many packages depend on virtual/editor? Should it be a virtual at > > > all? > > > > The system set depends on it, and last I knew didn't allow for any-of > > deps. > > Does it really depend on it ? Or is it just a convenient dep so its > installed as part of the stage1 ? Why not just put nano in the system > (which is was gets pulled into the stages anyway). if it's part of the "system" target, then it's a pita for people to switch editors ... `emerge vim && emerge -C nano` wont work anymore if it's part of the "build" target (meaning it goes into stage1 but isnt part of "system"), then it'll get cleaned by default when doing something simple like `emerge depclean` it doesnt matter to me whether ebuilds do PROVIDE or a new style virtual, whatever floats your boat i guess -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] new-style virtual/editor
On Sunday, 7. October 2007, Alec Warner wrote: > On 10/7/07, Robert Buchholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Friday, 5. October 2007, Olivier Crête wrote: > > > On Fri, 2007-05-10 at 11:46 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > > > How many packages depend on virtual/editor? Should it be a > > > > virtual at all? > > > > > > !rdep virtual/editor > > > virtual/editor <- app-admin/sudo sys-process/fcron > > > > > > I think the answer is none that really should, I would favor just > > > removing virtual/editor. > > > > A lot more applications need it, see subversion and cvs, which > > invoke $EDITOR. > > I think you missed the train when someone mentioned we put an editor > in system, thus making one always available. I thought this discussion was going into a direction that had the system dependency removed. I guess I was mistaking. Robert signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] new-style virtual/editor
On 10/7/07, Robert Buchholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday, 5. October 2007, Olivier Crête wrote: > > On Fri, 2007-05-10 at 11:46 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > > How many packages depend on virtual/editor? Should it be a virtual > > > at all? > > > > !rdep virtual/editor > > virtual/editor <- app-admin/sudo sys-process/fcron > > > > I think the answer is none that really should, I would favor just > > removing virtual/editor. > > A lot more applications need it, see subversion and cvs, which invoke > $EDITOR. I think you missed the train when someone mentioned we put an editor in system, thus making one always available. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] new-style virtual/editor
On Friday, 5. October 2007, Olivier Crête wrote: > On Fri, 2007-05-10 at 11:46 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > How many packages depend on virtual/editor? Should it be a virtual > > at all? > > !rdep virtual/editor > virtual/editor <- app-admin/sudo sys-process/fcron > > I think the answer is none that really should, I would favor just > removing virtual/editor. A lot more applications need it, see subversion and cvs, which invoke $EDITOR. Robert signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] new-style virtual/editor
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 15:18:11 -0400 Olivier Crête <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I see that both sudo and fcron, while they have some versions that > depend on virtual/editor actually hardcode nano as the default. For the fcron dependency, see https://bugs.gentoo.org/149376#c15 and onward. Kind regards, JeR -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] new-style virtual/editor
On Fri, 2007-10-05 at 14:57 -0400, Olivier Crête wrote: > On Fri, 2007-05-10 at 11:46 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > How many packages depend on virtual/editor? Should it be a virtual at > > all? > > !rdep virtual/editor > virtual/editor <- app-admin/sudo sys-process/fcron > > I think the answer is none that really should, I would favor just > removing virtual/editor. Ehh... "system" also requires it. Removing the virtual means everybody, no matter what, will get nano and won't be able to remove it without portage bitching up a storm. Currently, you can replace nano with any editor that meets the virtual and it'll satisfy the system target. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] new-style virtual/editor
On Fri, 2007-05-10 at 20:27 +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote: > On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 11:46:29 -0700 > Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > How many packages depend on virtual/editor? Should it be a virtual at > > all? > > The system set depends on it, and last I knew didn't allow for any-of > deps. Does it really depend on it ? Or is it just a convenient dep so its installed as part of the stage1 ? Why not just put nano in the system (which is was gets pulled into the stages anyway). I see that both sudo and fcron, while they have some versions that depend on virtual/editor actually hardcode nano as the default. -- Olivier Crête [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Developer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] new-style virtual/editor
On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 11:46:29 -0700 Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How many packages depend on virtual/editor? Should it be a virtual at > all? The system set depends on it, and last I knew didn't allow for any-of deps. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] new-style virtual/editor
On Fri, 2007-05-10 at 11:46 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > How many packages depend on virtual/editor? Should it be a virtual at > all? !rdep virtual/editor virtual/editor <- app-admin/sudo sys-process/fcron I think the answer is none that really should, I would favor just removing virtual/editor. -- Olivier Crête [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Developer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] new-style virtual/editor
On 20:42 Fri 05 Oct , Christian Faulhammer wrote: > about 26 ebuilds have a PROVIDE=virtual/editor. Those could be > transformed to a new-style virtual, which is really simple. According > to zmedico and genone the impact of just commiting the virtual would > be low. But I'd like to hear some comments on it. If noone objects I > will commit it next week (Monday probably) and remove all PROVIDE > lines. Eventually I will check profiles, too, and file bugs when > unsure what the intended behaviour? Or anyone objections about me > touching his profiles. How many packages depend on virtual/editor? Should it be a virtual at all? Thanks, Donnie -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] new-style virtual/editor
Hi, about 26 ebuilds have a PROVIDE=virtual/editor. Those could be transformed to a new-style virtual, which is really simple. According to zmedico and genone the impact of just commiting the virtual would be low. But I'd like to hear some comments on it. If noone objects I will commit it next week (Monday probably) and remove all PROVIDE lines. Eventually I will check profiles, too, and file bugs when unsure what the intended behaviour? Or anyone objections about me touching his profiles. V-Li -- Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode http://www.faulhammer.org/> editor-0.ebuild Description: Binary data signature.asc Description: PGP signature
