Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Marking virtuals stable

[Jeroen Roovers <jer@gentoo.org>]

On Thu, 31 May 2007 05:28:35 -0400
Michael Cummings <mcummings@gentoo.org> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > So, only this reply.
> > 
> > May I conclude that nobody objects to the above?

I think marking virtuals is OK. If you cannot mark them because some
DEPENDs have not been marked (stable) for some arch, you couldn't do it
anyway (while at the same time getting past repoman) and would have to
file a keywording bug. I think I should probably review this stance at
the earliest when virtuals threaten to become more than containers for
DEPENDs.

> Wearing only my perl team hat, it would seem to lowly me that if a
> virtual points to packages foo and bar, and both foo and bar were
> tested and marked stable by the arch's previously, that its silly to
> then wait for them to mark the virtual stable as well, since at least
> in my perception the only function of that virtual is to say use one
> of these packages - which have already been marked stable.

I have seen many Perl virtuals go straight to stable and haven't ever
experienced any adverse effects. :)

> /me hopes some arch brains step in, like weeve in particular, who is
> usually far more eloquent at defending an arch's position

Oh sorry. :)


Kind regards,
     JeR
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list