1 |
Alan McKinnon wrote: |
2 |
> Turns out the virtual is working as designed - see Andreas's post |
3 |
> above I recall now a discussion on -dev about this ages ago, and a |
4 |
> consensus emerged then to keep things as they currently are (changing |
5 |
> it requires much effort and has all manner of effects on the tree). |
6 |
> The actual rule is: A virtual can (by definition) be stable as soon as |
7 |
> one of its providers is stable. |
8 |
|
9 |
So if we really don't want one of the other packages that satisfies what |
10 |
the virtual needs, we need to mask the others locally? |
11 |
|
12 |
Great. :/ |
13 |
|
14 |
Dale |
15 |
|
16 |
:-) :-) |