| 1 |
>>>>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2011, Thomas Sachau wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> If e.g. kde and sunrise overlay both provide an mta, they would both |
| 4 |
> need a fork of virtual/mta. Now one of those forks will be preferred |
| 5 |
> and used, e.g. the kde one. This means, that you cannot install the |
| 6 |
> mta from sunrise to satisfy the virtual without additional manual |
| 7 |
> work. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
So far this is only a hypothetical example, as there is no MTA package |
| 10 |
in the KDE overlay. As long as sunrise is the only overlay providing |
| 11 |
such a package, I don't see how maintaining a fork of the virtual |
| 12 |
would be problematic. Any collision scenarios can be solved when they |
| 13 |
really arise (if ever). |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> The only way to solve this properly without asking the user to |
| 16 |
> manually adjust things is to just add all mtas from overlays (maybe |
| 17 |
> restricted to dev-controlled or -managed overlays) to virtual/mta in |
| 18 |
> the main tree. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
The additional entries in the any-of-many dependency are not an issue. |
| 21 |
But the problem that I see with this approach is that a maintainer of |
| 22 |
a package depending on the virtual would have to test if his package |
| 23 |
works with those additional dependencies from overlays. I'd rather not |
| 24 |
impose such an additional burden upon maintainers of main tree |
| 25 |
packages. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Ulrich |
Archives