This is a fake ebuild for Pico that mentions the following when the user tries to emerge it: * There is no real Pico here. * * Pico is part of net-mail/pine. Try "emerge app-editors/nano" * for a good Pico clone (it should be installed by default). * * If you really want to use the original Pico, you may want * to try "emerge net-mail/pine" instead.
Created attachment 1376 [details] fake ebuild for pico
Created attachment 1377 [details] updated ebuild I used the wrong ebuild function, sorry. pkg_setup() should be more suitable.
Committed. Good idea.
.
We stumbled over this ebuild when converting virtual/editor to a new-style virtual. IHMO it is pointless to have an ebuild that just will fail. We should either put "|| ( app-editors/nano mail-client/pine )" in RDEPEND or remove the "package". Reassigning to treecleaners, CCing maintainers of nano and pine.
having a fake ebuild that redirects is just as worthless either add one that does `die` so people know to do `emerge -C pico` or simply p.mask and delete it
p.masked for removal
Considering that having that fake ebuild in the tree has exactly zero maintenance overhead and that it helped at least one user (me) when installing, I'd go for keeping it. vapier's die variant sounds good to me. (I'd volunteer to maintain it, but I'm not an ebuild dev and don't have access to the gentoo-x86 tree. Feel free to add me to the metadata and I'll find someone to proxy it for me.)
Uh; dummy junk that only produces a die instead of installing something is a QA violation. Or shall we also add one for app-editor/vi which dies with 'There is no vi, emerge vim'? (NB, app-editors/vi actually *used* to have a valid ebuild, unlike pico).
This is clearly not a matter of more or less maintenance work. It may rather annoy users if their over-night emerge aborts because of this. And obviously we cannot have an extra ebuild for each binary in the system, so why should pine/pico be an exception? (O.K., there's at least one more example in the tree: mail-client/sylpheed-claws-2.6.1. Are mail clients and their editors special?)
(In reply to comment #10) > (O.K., there's at least one more example in the tree: > mail-client/sylpheed-claws-2.6.1. Are mail clients and their editors special?) Bug 195421 now.
dead.
