| 1 |
"Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@g.o> writes: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> for a virtual pointing to packages foo and bar, only one of them needs |
| 4 |
> to be stable before the virtual can be marked as stable, right? |
| 5 |
> So your above comment should read "if a virtual points to packages foo |
| 6 |
> and bar, and [either foo or bar was] tested and marked stable by the |
| 7 |
> arch's previously, that its silly to then wait for them to mark the |
| 8 |
> virtual stable as well", right? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
At first sight what you say sounds right, but further thought shows that |
| 11 |
both foo and bar would have to be marked stable before the virtual could |
| 12 |
be. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Take the instance that the appropriate version of foo is marked stable |
| 15 |
but that for bar is still in ~arch. If someone has foo installed then |
| 16 |
upgrading the virtual will pull in the new (stable) foo and all is |
| 17 |
well. However if someone else has bar installed but not foo, then the |
| 18 |
upgrade to the virtual will not cause bar to be upgraded (as it is still |
| 19 |
masked ~arch) but will cause the upgraded foo to be installed (as a new |
| 20 |
package) to satisfy the virtual. Or have I (as a mere user) |
| 21 |
misunderstood the concepts of virtuals? |
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives