On 2013-05-22, Orion Poplawski <orion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 05/22/2013 04:44 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: >> On Wed, 2013-05-22 at 23:30 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> >> Still, I don't see how that's really worth doing instead of just using a >> virtual provide. The OP's reasoning for not using a virtual provide >> sounded rather specious to me. The two things are functionally >> equivalent so far as I can see. Just different syntax. >> > > I'll get more specific then: > > python-pyface can use two different graphics backends - either wxPython or > pyQt4. In no way do these two packages provide the same thing in any > meaningful way other than to pyface. So, while one could go the provides > route, it doesn't seem to make sense to me. I suppose I could ask for: > > Provides: pyface-backend > > in both PyQt4 and wxPython. Think that would make sense? > In my option this is wrong becuse: (1) You have to touch foreign package for that. You have to persuade maintainer of that packages to put to provide there and bump release just for that purpose. (2) The feaure to use PyQt4 as a back-end is ability of pyface, not ability of PyQt4. So you should declare the feature in pyface, not in the PyQt4. (3) What will happen when pyface looses ability to use PyQt4 as a back-end? Will there keep stray Provides in the PyQt4 forever? In short, interchangable requirement list (the OR in Requires) is more natural and efficent way how to express it than putting yet another layer of virtual provides. -- Petr -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
