From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1QDd7B-0006z2-Ai for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 13:43:13 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EEA211C02B; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 13:43:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ww0-f53.google.com (mail-ww0-f53.google.com [74.125.82.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66C2E1C001 for ; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 13:42:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wwj40 with SMTP id 40so1123742wwj.10 for ; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 06:42:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:x-mailer:mime-version:content-type; bh=qYVBqQo4yEdRgj1LMkRv2pDF3OZwGg1hLMcIv+KhRCE=; b=aT0Bg1dC5XXeCaqJzhFZUFKk5F9ejYxovo1T43pAWLUxcfvmrggWiim7FCkyigtMh2 ZyDTfUyj8vqdwTzs1OTmZUhAh71vsNP6UKorI9FhdwoGdY7guD3T2c7GGKnZRY2lzmx6 2+5NMx3Rw8vkBBwJBEa43exGAekT6dhVbg+O4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type; b=atZjLiep7N6jSR7psU/6sEqQdEJaTWS4r1HnbxIe+Qj3psGtCzB6PDorbTfgiJq576 bMib1fkWXTQtm02LOgu6onohjt7j/e+wrgVqO7C6LuDm2xAC8YBePu+hPajN7iBKck6H LMcPiu3rIUtBRBefsnr1FMf0q8A/RCBoo4Ayc= Received: by 10.227.205.12 with SMTP id fo12mr2131956wbb.70.1303566150469; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 06:42:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (cpc1-broo3-0-0-cust98.14-2.cable.virginmedia.com [86.4.208.99]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id bd8sm2272783wbb.14.2011.04.23.06.42.29 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 23 Apr 2011 06:42:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 14:37:09 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] reconciling new-style virtuals with overlays, was: RDEPENDing on packages from overlays? Message-ID: <20110423143709.4aa18f6a@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <4DB2D3E4.9080005@gentoo.org> References: <4DB26C3C.8090602@gentoo.org> <4DB2A9CD.7010708@gentoo.org> <20110423123235.1d618818@googlemail.com> <4DB2D3E4.9080005@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.6 (GTK+ 2.22.1; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/QG.OBGmUXzB5lIF46jrKlc0"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 019554fd7d798d1657a85571ccf3d15f --Sig_/QG.OBGmUXzB5lIF46jrKlc0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 15:28:04 +0200 Ch=C3=AD-Thanh Christopher Nguy=E1=BB=85n wrote: > Because there is a reason for not doing so, or because you think that > multi-repository support is a superior solution which will come > sooner? Because what you propose solves nothing, and prevents the entire point of the exercise, which is to do away entirely with old style virtuals and all the problems they introduce. --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_/QG.OBGmUXzB5lIF46jrKlc0 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk2y1ggACgkQ96zL6DUtXhHb6gCghnk1qBK1Og3dTz6+y9GCW+1K SMwAnR3heOdu+yvHTRWz0JkBFj2KSPqe =/qY+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/QG.OBGmUXzB5lIF46jrKlc0--