| 1 |
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 01:54:30 +0200 |
| 2 |
Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 13/03/12 00:34, »Q« wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 22:29:10 +0200 |
| 6 |
> > Alan McKinnon<alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> >> Anyone care to offer an opinion on what it will take to get |
| 9 |
> >> PROVIDES support in portage? |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > IMO, it would take virtuals causing so many headachy breakages that |
| 12 |
> > some devs started keeping up a steady drumbeat on irc and mailing |
| 13 |
> > lists. When the number of virtual packages gets close to a |
| 14 |
> > thousand, I'd guess that might happen. Then there would be years |
| 15 |
> > of discussion and GLEP proposals, and by EAPI 207 it should be |
| 16 |
> > done. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> The problem isn't the amount of virtuals. This doesn't affect the |
| 19 |
> users much. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I expect more virtuals will mean more bugs affecting users. I don't |
| 22 |
know how hairy they will be, but here's one ugly example: |
| 23 |
<https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=398295>. It's unresolved, but |
| 24 |
less has been added back to @system so stage 3 tarballs aren't broken |
| 25 |
for now. (I guess this could have happened with provides as well.) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> It's the inability for people to offer replacement |
| 28 |
> packages in overlays. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Yeah, I see. |
Archives