Re: [gentoo-dev] new-style virtual/editor

2007-10-07 Thread Robert Buchholz
On Friday, 5. October 2007, Olivier Crête wrote: On Fri, 2007-05-10 at 11:46 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: How many packages depend on virtual/editor? Should it be a virtual at all? Tester_ !rdep virtual/editor jeeves virtual/editor - app-admin/sudo sys-process/fcron I think the answer

Re: [gentoo-dev] new-style virtual/editor

2007-10-07 Thread Alec Warner
On 10/7/07, Robert Buchholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday, 5. October 2007, Olivier Crête wrote: On Fri, 2007-05-10 at 11:46 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: How many packages depend on virtual/editor? Should it be a virtual at all? Tester_ !rdep virtual/editor jeeves

Re: [gentoo-dev] new-style virtual/editor

2007-10-07 Thread Robert Buchholz
On Sunday, 7. October 2007, Alec Warner wrote: On 10/7/07, Robert Buchholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday, 5. October 2007, Olivier Crête wrote: On Fri, 2007-05-10 at 11:46 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: How many packages depend on virtual/editor? Should it be a virtual at all?

Re: [gentoo-dev] new-style virtual/editor

2007-10-07 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Friday 05 October 2007, Olivier Crête wrote: On Fri, 2007-05-10 at 20:27 +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote: Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How many packages depend on virtual/editor? Should it be a virtual at all? The system set depends on it, and last I knew didn't allow for

Re: [gentoo-dev] new-style virtual/editor

2007-10-05 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On 20:42 Fri 05 Oct , Christian Faulhammer wrote: about 26 ebuilds have a PROVIDE=virtual/editor. Those could be transformed to a new-style virtual, which is really simple. According to zmedico and genone the impact of just commiting the virtual would be low. But I'd like to hear

[gentoo-dev] new-style virtual/editor

2007-10-05 Thread Christian Faulhammer
Hi, about 26 ebuilds have a PROVIDE=virtual/editor. Those could be transformed to a new-style virtual, which is really simple. According to zmedico and genone the impact of just commiting the virtual would be low. But I'd like to hear some comments on it. If noone objects I will commit it

Re: [gentoo-dev] new-style virtual/editor

2007-10-05 Thread Olivier Crête
On Fri, 2007-05-10 at 11:46 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: How many packages depend on virtual/editor? Should it be a virtual at all? Tester_ !rdep virtual/editor jeeves virtual/editor - app-admin/sudo sys-process/fcron I think the answer is none that really should, I would favor just removing

Re: [gentoo-dev] new-style virtual/editor

2007-10-05 Thread Olivier Crête
On Fri, 2007-05-10 at 20:27 +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote: On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 11:46:29 -0700 Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How many packages depend on virtual/editor? Should it be a virtual at all? The system set depends on it, and last I knew didn't allow for any-of deps.

Re: [gentoo-dev] new-style virtual/editor

2007-10-05 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 11:46:29 -0700 Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How many packages depend on virtual/editor? Should it be a virtual at all? The system set depends on it, and last I knew didn't allow for any-of deps. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] new-style virtual/editor

2007-10-05 Thread Jeroen Roovers
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 15:18:11 -0400 Olivier Crête [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I see that both sudo and fcron, while they have some versions that depend on virtual/editor actually hardcode nano as the default. For the fcron dependency, see https://bugs.gentoo.org/149376#c15 and onward. Kind