On Sun, 4 Jun 2017 13:56:52 +0100 Andrey Utkin <andrey_ut...@fastmail.com> wrote:
> You have searched for packages that names contain libavcodec in > suite(s) stable, all sections, and all architectures. Found 4 > matching packages. Package libavcodec-dev > Package libavcodec-extra > Package libavcodec-extra-56 > Package libavcodec56 > > Obviously numbered package name libavcodec56 can be an attribute of > exact ebuild, but not of a Gentoo package. Sure, but these sorts of things is why it wouldn't be mandatory to have any of these, and it wouldn't be mandatory to have a complete mapping. It would only be provisioned in as far as the maintainer of that package considered it useful, at their discretion. And even if you included several dozen, what are the downsides other than "ugly"? If the *utility* they provide outweighs the "ugly" factor, and there are no *technical* downsides of this "ugliness", then surely, the utility wins. An index that is incomplete here is still better than no index at all.
pgpCtomcL3ZJ7.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
