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.
Uh huh, so rather than adding in a hack, we need a proper way of identifying those cases. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
