| 1 |
>>>>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2011, Eray Aslan wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> The consensus seems to be to leave it for the package maintainer to |
| 4 |
> decide. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> I, for one, will be making the necessary changes to include packages |
| 7 |
> from overlays until, for whatever reason, it either |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> * becomes too burdensome |
| 10 |
> * hinders the main tree |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I can live with that, as long as the responsibility that packages work |
| 13 |
with dependencies from overlays stays entirely with the overlay's |
| 14 |
maintainer. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
But could you please add a comment in the virtual's ebuild where (i.e. |
| 17 |
in which overlay) the additional dependencies can be found? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Ulrich |
Archives