1 |
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:08:07 +0900 Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o> |
2 |
wrote: |
3 |
| > Uh, given that you can do that with old style virtuals, methinks |
4 |
| > that isn't the case... |
5 |
| |
6 |
| Only by modifying every ebuild that has a virtual/x11 dependency. The |
7 |
| atom "virtual/x11" cannot be limited to specific versions on its own |
8 |
| with old style virtuals. |
9 |
|
10 |
Oh? There's at least one old style virtual that specifies a full dep |
11 |
atom rather than a package name. I know this because it broke my first |
12 |
virtuals parser that was expecting a straight name... |
13 |
|
14 |
| The premise for not doing this is that packages will never be fixed, |
15 |
| right? Why not make the modular X provide virtual/x11 and just |
16 |
| institute a policy that no new packages can go into stable with a |
17 |
| virtual/x11 dependency? It could even be easily enforcable if |
18 |
| necessary. |
19 |
|
20 |
Much more sensible. |
21 |
|
22 |
-- |
23 |
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (King of all Londinium) |
24 |
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org |
25 |
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm |