Summary: | Idea to Manage Meta Package --pretend Listing Mess | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Portage Development | Reporter: | illuminata <capitalista> |
Component: | Enhancement/Feature Requests | Assignee: | Portage team <dev-portage> |
Status: | RESOLVED REMIND | ||
Severity: | enhancement | ||
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | All | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- |
Description
illuminata
2005-03-09 04:15:32 UTC
Check the dev ml for metapkg glep spb proposed, it would (basically) do this automatically without adding a special case '-meta' detection. I don't really like special casing this at all, if it were to be done. Perhaps only list packages specified on the command line or those comprising a target if a target is specified? I don't like a special case for this either. Perhaps it could be implemented as an alternative display option (akin to --tree) the summarizes dependencies rather than listing them all verbosely. I guess I assumed at the time that you guys were gonna slap -meta at the end of all meta ebuilds. I agree that there probably shouldn't be special casing in this sense now that stuff like xorg 7.0 is going to be modular, etc. So, here's another idea. I agree with comment #2. Comment #3 sounds like my suggestion of a new option from comment #1, but in reverse (assuming that I understand it correctly). I'd still prefer that expansion of a meta listing be done manually instead of making a summary manual since keeping things tidy from the start and then having the option to see more seems nicer than having to look at an expanded list no matter what. I also don't know whether there should be a new option for expanding a meta list, or if emerge should list all of the packages under a meta by just using --tree. Also, for another idea, an ebuild could be considered meta by indicating that it is indeed a meta within the ebuild itself. That way, you'd eliminate having to append -meta to each meta ebuild while still being able to implement some of the ideas in comment #1. You could also have [ebuild M] indicate that you're dealing with a meta package. I'd say to revisit this when we have general support for depgraph output plugins. |