On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 14:01:48 -0700 Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi everyone, > > Since there were some questions about ambiguity in the meaning of > the proposed PROPERTIES=virtual [1] value, we need to clarify it. > > [ ... ] > > Ebuilds that exhibit the "virtual" property commonly serve as a > layer of indirection in dependencies. All of the ebuilds in the > existing "virtual" category [4] should be eligible to define > PROPERTIES=virtual. If the ebuilds in the virtual category were the > only ones that exhibited this "virtual" property, then the > information that PROPERTIES=virtual represents could simply be > inferred from membership of that category. However, existence of > meta-packages in the "java-virtuals" category [5], among others, > makes it useful to introduce the "virtual" property as a means to > identify these ebuilds. Note that some packages, such as x11-libs/qt > [6], exhibit this property for some versions and not others. So, in > some cases it may be useful to be able to specify the "virtual" > property separately for different ebuild versions. > Wouldn't it be more appropriate to just move the "offending" ebuilds to virtual category? e.g. virtual/qt, etc. > - -- > Thanks, > Zac -- Michal Kurgan http://dev.gentoo.org/~moloh
