| 1 |
2009/3/30 Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk>: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:17:00 +0200, Daniel Pielmeier wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> > So every ebuild, in the tree and all overlays, was updated before the |
| 5 |
>> > split ebuilds were introduced? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
>> I don't know the exact progress but I think the split ebuilds were |
| 8 |
>> introduced masked, then the dependencies have been adjusted |
| 9 |
>> accordingly. After the transition was done the ebuilds have been |
| 10 |
>> unmasked. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> OK, so the meta ebuild is just a safety net for those running ebuilds not |
| 13 |
> in the portage tree. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Probably, but even overlays should consider changing the dependencies |
| 17 |
and use the advantage of the split ebuilds ;-) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Regards, |
| 21 |
Daniel |
Archives