| 1 |
Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 22/04/2015 08:09, Dale wrote: |
| 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 |
>> 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 |
> Not totally. Pick which package you want and emerge it, portage knows |
| 21 |
> you have something that satisfies the virtual and will be happy with it. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> If you don't use the main provider that's first in the list, like |
| 24 |
> Alexander has here, then portage gets wordy when the provider is not yet |
| 25 |
> stabilized. Take note, keyword it if you need to, and move along with |
| 26 |
> the rest of your life. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> No need to mask all the other providers |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Whew!! Had me worried for a minute there. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Dale |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
:-) :-) |
Archives