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 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Htl7G-0000Hh-Mj for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 31 May 2007 13:55:03 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l4VDs7AQ015686; Thu, 31 May 2007 13:54:07 GMT Received: from siemen.orkz.net (atwork-180.r-212.178.119.atwork.nl [212.178.119.180]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l4VDqGlb013515 for ; Thu, 31 May 2007 13:52:16 GMT Received: (qmail 32738 invoked by uid 98); 31 May 2007 13:52:46 -0000 Received: from 192.168.1.220 by siemen.orkz.net (envelope-from , uid 89) with qmail-scanner-1.25 (clamdscan: 0.88.4/1763. spamassassin: 3.1.4. Clear:RC:1(192.168.1.220):. Processed in 0.056579 secs); 31 May 2007 13:52:46 -0000 X-Qmail-Scanner-Mail-From: jer@gentoo.org via siemen.orkz.net X-Qmail-Scanner: 1.25 (Clear:RC:1(192.168.1.220):. Processed in 0.056579 secs) Received: from unknown (HELO epia.jer-c2.orkz.net) (192.168.1.220) by siemen.orkz.net with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 31 May 2007 13:52:46 -0000 Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 15:52:12 +0200 From: Jeroen Roovers To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Marking virtuals stable Message-ID: <20070531155212.7b2cc2bd@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net> In-Reply-To: <465E9543.7010500@gentoo.org> References: <17993.36648.37167.198946@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <46499076.6090401@gentoo.org> <17993.37916.578366.696016@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <46499588.5000003@gentoo.org> <20070523132115.22686f03@luna.home> <18013.54938.330459.97140@a1ihome1.kph.uni-mainz.de> <465E9543.7010500@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 2.9.2 (GTK+ 2.10.9; 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: e010507c-3dc3-46ed-be7b-5f963a0b7f2f X-Archives-Hash: 37269dd3901fe0dc3af370dfefd25dee On Thu, 31 May 2007 05:28:35 -0400 Michael Cummings 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