v2ray-geodata: provide a virtual package

[teleostnacl]

📦 Package Details

Maintainer:
@1715173329 Tianling Shen cnsztl@immortalwrt.org

Description:
According to openwrt/openwrt#21288, switch v2ray-geodata provides to use the new virtual provides semantic that enables v2ray-geoip and v2ray-geosite to be installed side-by-side.

This resolves the conflict between the v2ray-geoip and v2ray-geosite packages during make package/install .

Without this PR, the following error occurs when running make package/install:

ERROR: unable to select packages:
  v2ray-geoip-202512201334-r1:
    conflicts: v2ray-geosite-20251231040011-r1[v2ray-geodata=202512201334-r1]
               v2ray-geosite-20251231040011-r1[xray-geodata=202512201334-r1]
    satisfies: world[v2ray-geoip] luci-app-passwall2-25.12.25-r1[v2ray-geoip]
  v2ray-geosite-20251231040011-r1:
    conflicts: v2ray-geoip-202512201334-r1[v2ray-geodata=20251231040011-r1]
               v2ray-geoip-202512201334-r1[xray-geodata=20251231040011-r1]
    satisfies: world[v2ray-geosite] luci-app-passwall2-25.12.25-r1[v2ray-geosite]

---

🧪 Run Testing Details

• OpenWrt Version: r32463-8e6cd2608a
• OpenWrt Target/Subtarget: mediatek/filogic
• OpenWrt Device: CMCC RAX3000M

---

✅ Formalities

• I have reviewed the CONTRIBUTING.md file for detailed contributing guidelines.

If your PR contains a patch:

• It can be applied using git am
• It has been refreshed to avoid offsets, fuzzes, etc., using

  make package/<your-package>/refresh V=s

• It is structured in a way that it is potentially upstreamable
  _{(e.g., subject line, commit description, etc.)
  We must try to upstream patches to reduce maintenance burden.}

[teleostnacl]

Hello @GeorgeSapkin, could you please help review this?

See openwrt/openwrt#21288

[GeorgeSapkin]

Your commit message points to this PR in Fixes:. Did you mean to point it to another issue perhaps?

Edit: I usually omit empty lines between Related, Fixes and sign-off.

[teleostnacl]

Hello @GeorgeSapkin

I have omitted unnecessary empty lines. And I want to relate this PR in the commit for future reference, so maybe using “Related” would be more appropriate.

[GeorgeSapkin]

I don't think there's any meaningful additional context in this PR compared to the commit description.

[GeorgeSapkin]

Also you should use a GitHub username when specifying maintainers in a PR, and not a name and an email.

[teleostnacl]

@GeorgeSapkin

I have edited the Maintainer and Description, please check it again, thanks a lot!

[GeorgeSapkin]

And since this is modifying packaging information, you should bump the PKG_RELEASE.

[teleostnacl]

And since this is modifying packaging information, you should bump the PKG_RELEASE.

@GeorgeSapkin

I’m sorry I forgot this important detail. And now I have bumped the PKG_RELEASE to 2, please check it again, thanks.