| 1 |
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 09:42:25AM +0300, Eray Aslan wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 07:39:55AM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I can live with that, as long as the responsibility that packages work |
| 4 |
> > with dependencies from overlays stays entirely with the overlay's |
| 5 |
> > maintainer. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Good point. Agreed. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> > But could you please add a comment in the virtual's ebuild where (i.e. |
| 10 |
> i> in which overlay) the additional dependencies can be found? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Done. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Better yet, |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
why don't welook into moving those packages from the overlays into the |
| 17 |
main tree? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
William |
Archives