On Wednesday 25 January 2006 16:19, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > Jason Stubbs wrote: > > Only by modifying every ebuild that has a virtual/x11 dependency. The atom > > "virtual/x11" cannot be limited to specific versions on its own with old > > style virtuals. > > Is that so? I guess this must be wrong, then: > > /usr/portage/profiles/base/virtuals:# Only have this for >=pam-0.78, as > we want to make use of the 'include' > /usr/portage/profiles/base/virtuals:virtual/pam > >=sys-libs/pam-0.78
Yep, portage simply removes the >= and 0.78 parts and makes all versions of sys-libs/pam a provider of virtual/pam. Why there is no warning I don't know. > > The premise for not doing this is that packages will never be fixed, > > right? Why not make the modular X provide virtual/x11 and just institute a > > policy that no new packages can go into stable with a virtual/x11 > > dependency? It could even be easily enforcable if necessary. > > How does that fix the stale, unmaintained here and upstream apps that > are in stable now and have no ~arch ebuilds? It wouldn't, but at least there'd be fewer packages to deal with in the final cleanup. It was just an innocent question though; as far as I can tell, emerging any application (ported or not) on a clean system will not break even after modular X is unmasked. It's a fine line between whether packages "needlessly" not working together due to incompatible (deep) dependencies is considered breakage or not though... /me steps away from the flames for fear of getting burned. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
