| 1 |
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:08:07 +0900 Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| > Uh, given that you can do that with old style virtuals, methinks |
| 4 |
| > that isn't the case... |
| 5 |
| |
| 6 |
| Only by modifying every ebuild that has a virtual/x11 dependency. The |
| 7 |
| atom "virtual/x11" cannot be limited to specific versions on its own |
| 8 |
| with old style virtuals. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Oh? There's at least one old style virtual that specifies a full dep |
| 11 |
atom rather than a package name. I know this because it broke my first |
| 12 |
virtuals parser that was expecting a straight name... |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
| The premise for not doing this is that packages will never be fixed, |
| 15 |
| right? Why not make the modular X provide virtual/x11 and just |
| 16 |
| institute a policy that no new packages can go into stable with a |
| 17 |
| virtual/x11 dependency? It could even be easily enforcable if |
| 18 |
| necessary. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Much more sensible. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (King of all Londinium) |
| 24 |
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org |
| 25 |
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm |
Archives