On Saturday 15 January 2005 15:38, Nicholas Jones wrote:
(B> > Umm... the list ends in the same behavior that -r12 gives. Adding
(B> > app-editors/nano to the Installed list will show the change in behavior
(B> > that -r13 brings.
(B>
(B> There are differences in variations. Specifically U+I vs P+I
(B> distinction and proper negation.
(B>
(B> > Hmm... With the steps that you've shown above, app-editors/vim ends up
(B> > coming first even though the user virtuals specifies app-misc/mc. Is that
(B> > actual behavior or just a mistake on paper?
(B>
(B> I detailed it backwards so that non-portage people wouldn't have
(B> their heads explode. :)
(B>
(B> I kept everything prioritized right to left, as that is what users
(B> see and didn't want to confuse people by flipping it around while
(B> asking for opinion.
(B
(BOkay, there is one issue. If negations from /etc/portage/profile/virtuals are
(Bapplied to detected installed virtuals, then there is no way to reliably
(Bdetect virtual blockers. That is, negated packages can't be accounted for.
(BYou could say that it's the user's fault for purposely breaking there system,
(Bbut I don't see the need to be able to exclude installed packages from
(Bdetection of virtual providers anyway.
(B
(BRegards,
(BJason Stubbs
(B
(B--
([email protected] mailing list
