1 |
>>>>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2011, Thomas Sachau wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> If e.g. kde and sunrise overlay both provide an mta, they would both |
4 |
> need a fork of virtual/mta. Now one of those forks will be preferred |
5 |
> and used, e.g. the kde one. This means, that you cannot install the |
6 |
> mta from sunrise to satisfy the virtual without additional manual |
7 |
> work. |
8 |
|
9 |
So far this is only a hypothetical example, as there is no MTA package |
10 |
in the KDE overlay. As long as sunrise is the only overlay providing |
11 |
such a package, I don't see how maintaining a fork of the virtual |
12 |
would be problematic. Any collision scenarios can be solved when they |
13 |
really arise (if ever). |
14 |
|
15 |
> The only way to solve this properly without asking the user to |
16 |
> manually adjust things is to just add all mtas from overlays (maybe |
17 |
> restricted to dev-controlled or -managed overlays) to virtual/mta in |
18 |
> the main tree. |
19 |
|
20 |
The additional entries in the any-of-many dependency are not an issue. |
21 |
But the problem that I see with this approach is that a maintainer of |
22 |
a package depending on the virtual would have to test if his package |
23 |
works with those additional dependencies from overlays. I'd rather not |
24 |
impose such an additional burden upon maintainers of main tree |
25 |
packages. |
26 |
|
27 |
Ulrich |