| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 25/07/14 03:04 PM, Luis Ressel wrote: |
| 5 |
> I guess that would solve some of the issues we've had with virtuals |
| 6 |
> in the past. I support the idea, however, I'm not sure of the |
| 7 |
> technical consequences it might have. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I would leave the REQUIRED_USE out. It's a hassle to write, and if |
| 10 |
> an user decides to set multiple use flags on such a virtual, why |
| 11 |
> not just let him do it? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
This is something that should only be done on a case-by-case basis, as |
| 15 |
needed -- for instance, with virtual/krb5 only one provider can be |
| 16 |
installed at a time as they block eachother. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
We could leave it up to portage to error on mit-krb5 and heimdal being |
| 19 |
forced into the installation despite blocking eachother, but i think |
| 20 |
portage would have a better chance telling end-users about the |
| 21 |
conflict (and maybe helping to resolve it better via --autounmask?) if |
| 22 |
there was a REQUIRED_USE. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 26 |
Version: GnuPG v2 |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlPSrsMACgkQ2ugaI38ACPB6NgD+NK2m8iM46YMi9kITUFEIQ/ih |
| 29 |
J67PjULbQ5ZHDRQDUs4A/ik+XNbsjNQwFd08jMD1dVG0DLr7VRVvUGz1VpmQB7so |
| 30 |
=Myry |
| 31 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives