| 1 |
On Thu, 31 May 2007 05:28:35 -0400 |
| 2 |
Michael Cummings <mcummings@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 5 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 8 |
> > So, only this reply. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > May I conclude that nobody objects to the above? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I think marking virtuals is OK. If you cannot mark them because some |
| 13 |
DEPENDs have not been marked (stable) for some arch, you couldn't do it |
| 14 |
anyway (while at the same time getting past repoman) and would have to |
| 15 |
file a keywording bug. I think I should probably review this stance at |
| 16 |
the earliest when virtuals threaten to become more than containers for |
| 17 |
DEPENDs. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> Wearing only my perl team hat, it would seem to lowly me that if a |
| 20 |
> virtual points to packages foo and bar, and both foo and bar were |
| 21 |
> tested and marked stable by the arch's previously, that its silly to |
| 22 |
> then wait for them to mark the virtual stable as well, since at least |
| 23 |
> in my perception the only function of that virtual is to say use one |
| 24 |
> of these packages - which have already been marked stable. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I have seen many Perl virtuals go straight to stable and haven't ever |
| 27 |
experienced any adverse effects. :) |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> /me hopes some arch brains step in, like weeve in particular, who is |
| 30 |
> usually far more eloquent at defending an arch's position |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Oh sorry. :) |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Kind regards, |
| 36 |
JeR |
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives