Bug 277838

Summary:	Support atoms in /etc/portage/profile/package.provided consistent with ordinary profiles
Product:	Portage Development	Reporter:	Kuhn Markus <k17031965>
Component:	Enhancement/Feature Requests	Assignee:	Portage team <dev-portage>
Status:	CONFIRMED ---
Severity:	normal	CC:	esigra, fearedbliss, jer, mmokrejs, phattanon, prefix, wolfram
Priority:	High
Version:	unspecified
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
See Also:	https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=142941
Whiteboard:
Package list:		Runtime testing required:	---
Bug Depends on:
Bug Blocks:	155723

Description Kuhn Markus 2009-07-14 16:59:12 UTC

I hope I'm here right, because my english is to bad for reading the Howto correctly.

A proposal to improve /etc/portage/profile/package.provided.
This package can't be registered without entering a version number .
Sometimes the package.provided is also used to prevent undesirable pacts to be
installed, regardless of the version number.
Could the force of Syntax package.provided be modified in order that
these packages will be accepted without the version number, so that Portage
can't install these pacts regardless of the version number?

Even better would be if the leading characters >, <, =, would belong to the
valid Syntax.

Comment 1 Zac Medico gentoo-dev

2009-07-16 21:04:43 UTC

It seems like a reasonable idea.

Comment 2 Phattanon Duangdara 2009-08-03 09:33:10 UTC

If no version number in package.provided. Portage cannot check DEPENDS correctly because it ambiguous. I think its not good idea.

Comment 3 Zac Medico gentoo-dev

2009-08-03 19:06:37 UTC

(In reply to comment #2)
> If no version number in package.provided. Portage cannot check DEPENDS
> correctly because it ambiguous. I think its not good idea.

There's always potential for misuse of package.provided. That's just the way it is. We shouldn't let fear of "more potential misuse" prevent us from adding a useful enhancement.

Comment 4 Zac Medico gentoo-dev

2012-07-15 06:59:07 UTC

*** Bug 426670 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[+] Comment 5 Jeroen Roovers (RETIRED) gentoo-dev

2014-03-25 19:52:16 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)

If you mark bugs about similar/related problems as duplicates, then at least fix the Summary to reflect that.

Comment 6 Jeroen Roovers (RETIRED) gentoo-dev

2014-03-25 19:52:22 UTC

*** Bug 505790 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 7 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis 2020-05-14 23:39:02 UTC

*** Bug 586714 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 8 Michael Haubenwallner (RETIRED) gentoo-dev

2020-05-15 06:31:45 UTC

IMHO, it doesn't make much sense to package.provide '<=version' or '>=version'.
For '<=version' it should be sufficient to provide 'version', while
for '>=version' it should be sufficient to provide '9999999', no?