| 1 |
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 4 |
> > Turns out the virtual is working as designed - see Andreas's post |
| 5 |
> > above I recall now a discussion on -dev about this ages ago, and a |
| 6 |
> > consensus emerged then to keep things as they currently are (changing |
| 7 |
> > it requires much effort and has all manner of effects on the tree). |
| 8 |
> > The actual rule is: A virtual can (by definition) be stable as soon as |
| 9 |
> > one of its providers is stable. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> So if we really don't want one of the other packages that satisfies what |
| 12 |
> the virtual needs, we need to mask the others locally? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Great. :/ |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Dale |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> :-) :-) |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=546902 |
Archives