Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Virtuals revisited (Round 3)
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 15:25:41
Message-Id: 20050407162429.6a1a2372@snowdrop
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Virtuals revisited (Round 3) by Jason Stubbs
1 On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 00:17:32 +0900 Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o>
2 wrote:
3 | > | > 3) We don't specify every virtual in every profile thanks to
4 | > | > cascades.
5 | > |
6 | > | And...? I guess you are referring to "profiles must provide a
7 | > | default ..." but that _is_ a correct statement. If somebody wants
8 | > | to create a new profile that doesn't derive from base, they must
9 | > | specify defaults for all the virtuals.
10 | >
11 | > Serves them right for not deriving from base :)
12 |
13 | In other words, irrelevant.
14
15 In other words, it's a pretty tame 'justification', especially when
16 there're far better ones. It's like saying that vim is better than nano
17 because the name is one character less to type in.
18
19 | > AFAIK, virtual can't be removed from categories either...
20 |
21 | Can fix this for portage-2.0.51.20.
22
23 We're gonna need another one of those "all users *must* upgrade portage
24 to at least 2.0.51.20" notices? As soon as this gets implemented, anyone
25 who syncs with an old version of portage is screwed (hence my original
26 dep comment before I realised how nasty the error actually was).
27
28 --
29 Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
30 Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org
31 Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Virtuals revisited (Round 3) Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o>