Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 277838 - Support atoms in /etc/portage/profile/package.provided consistent with ordinary profiles
Summary: Support atoms in /etc/portage/profile/package.provided consistent with ordina...
Status: CONFIRMED
Alias: None
Product: Portage Development
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Enhancement/Feature Requests (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: High normal (vote)
Assignee: Portage team
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
: 426670 505790 586714 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks: 155723
  Show dependency tree
 
Reported: 2009-07-14 16:59 UTC by Kuhn Markus
Modified: 2020-05-21 10:35 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
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
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 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?