Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hello here,
>
> the virtual/ thingy broke the deptree again with virtual/libstdc++ (see Bug
> 116253), essentially the same issue like with virtual/x11. These virtuals
> need to go straight stable if any of their RDEPEND atoms is stable for a
> particular arch
Mark Loeser wrote:
> Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>>Hello here,
>>
>>the virtual/ thingy broke the deptree again with virtual/libstdc++ (see Bug
>>116253), essentially the same issue like with virtual/x11. These virtuals
>>need to go straight stable if any of their RDEPEND atoms is stable
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hello here,
>
> the virtual/ thingy broke the deptree again with virtual/libstdc++ (see Bug
> 116253), essentially the same issue like with virtual/x11. These virtuals
> need to go straight stable if any of their RDEPEND atoms is stable for a
> particular arch
On Wednesday 21 December 2005 19:28, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> IOW, it doesn't matter if an ~arch virtual depends on stable packages.
> It matters if stable packages depend on an ~arch virtual.
So that's like any other package in the tree..
--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://dev.gentoo.org/~fla
Jakub Moc wrote:
the virtual/ thingy broke the deptree again with virtual/libstdc++ (see Bug
116253), essentially the same issue like with virtual/x11. These virtuals
need to go straight stable if any of their RDEPEND atoms is stable for a
particular arch.
Shouldn't it be the reverse? Rather, t
Hello here,
the virtual/ thingy broke the deptree again with virtual/libstdc++ (see Bug
116253), essentially the same issue like with virtual/x11. These virtuals
need to go straight stable if any of their RDEPEND atoms is stable for a
particular arch.
Betelgeuse is working on a repoman check for
