| 1 |
Am 23.04.2011 13:02, schrieb Zac Medico: |
| 2 |
> On 04/22/2011 11:05 PM, Eray Aslan wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On the other hand, we are making life (unneccesarily?) difficult for |
| 4 |
>> overlay users by not incorporating the requested changes to the official |
| 5 |
>> tree. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I don't imagine it's that much work to maintain a fork of the virtual. |
| 8 |
> It's just an inconvenience for users since the version from the overlay |
| 9 |
> might become temporarily outdated and cause problems with dependency |
| 10 |
> resolution. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
It may be no issue as long as the virtual does not change that much or as long as not more than 1 |
| 13 |
overlay forks the virtual. But as already written in Bugzilla, you create an issue for users, if you |
| 14 |
have 2 overlays added, which both provide the package. Simple example, which i presented in Bugzilla: |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
If e.g. kde and sunrise overlay both provide an mta, they would both need a fork of virtual/mta. Now |
| 17 |
one of those forks will be preferred and used, e.g. the kde one. This means, that you cannot install |
| 18 |
the mta from sunrise to satisfy the virtual without additional manual work. The only way to solve |
| 19 |
this properly without asking the user to manually adjust things is to just add all mtas from |
| 20 |
overlays (maybe restricted to dev-controlled or -managed overlays) to virtual/mta in the main tree. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Thomas Sachau |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
Archives