From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Fgn2p-0007AJ-50 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 18 May 2006 18:16:19 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k4IIDvvu020607; Thu, 18 May 2006 18:13:57 GMT Received: from smtp-out4.blueyonder.co.uk (smtp-out4.blueyonder.co.uk [195.188.213.7]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k4II5d2M005972 for ; Thu, 18 May 2006 18:05:39 GMT Received: from [172.23.170.138] (helo=anti-virus01-09) by smtp-out4.blueyonder.co.uk with smtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FgmsV-0007yO-1R for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 18 May 2006 19:05:39 +0100 Received: from [213.121.151.206] (helo=snowdrop.home) by asmtp-out5.blueyonder.co.uk with esmtpa (Exim 4.52) id 1FgmsU-0005Hk-Ei for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 18 May 2006 19:05:38 +0100 Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 19:05:16 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Paludis and Profiles Message-ID: <20060518190516.017fed93@snowdrop.home> In-Reply-To: <200605181955.34344.pauldv@gentoo.org> References: <20060516161549.442b4d8a@localhost> <200605181651.00131.pauldv@gentoo.org> <20060518164424.05c25a07@localhost> <200605181955.34344.pauldv@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.1.1 (GTK+ 2.8.17; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 58a11a24-3deb-4277-b601-664331887e5e X-Archives-Hash: 7e60886bfbdad7fd8575f2ffbaacd714 On Thu, 18 May 2006 19:55:34 +0200 Paul de Vrieze wrote: | Is there any reason that this extra information can not be added in | such a way that portage will just silently ignore it. Portage's handling of unrecognised data is not sufficiently clever to allow this to be done in any reasonable manner. | > We also construct VDB entries for old-style virtuals, which will | > confuse Portage. | | Is there no way in which portage could be made to ignore this. There are ways, but they all involve adding in really nasty hacks that will just keep on getting messier and messier in the future. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail : ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list