| 1 |
On 22/04/2015 08:09, Dale wrote: |
| 2 |
> Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Turns out the virtual is working as designed - see Andreas's post |
| 4 |
>> above I recall now a discussion on -dev about this ages ago, and a |
| 5 |
>> consensus emerged then to keep things as they currently are (changing |
| 6 |
>> it requires much effort and has all manner of effects on the tree). |
| 7 |
>> The actual rule is: A virtual can (by definition) be stable as soon as |
| 8 |
>> one of its providers is stable. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> So if we really don't want one of the other packages that satisfies what |
| 11 |
> the virtual needs, we need to mask the others locally? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Great. :/ |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Dale |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> :-) :-) |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Not totally. Pick which package you want and emerge it, portage knows |
| 22 |
you have something that satisfies the virtual and will be happy with it. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
If you don't use the main provider that's first in the list, like |
| 25 |
Alexander has here, then portage gets wordy when the provider is not yet |
| 26 |
stabilized. Take note, keyword it if you need to, and move along with |
| 27 |
the rest of your life. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
No need to mask all the other providers |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 34 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives