From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 169641389A0 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 17:23:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6FEA621C033; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 17:23:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from foo.stuge.se (foo.stuge.se [212.116.89.98]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12B6F21C001 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 17:23:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 16165 invoked by uid 501); 11 Feb 2013 17:22:59 -0000 Message-ID: <20130211172259.16164.qmail@stuge.se> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:22:59 +0100 From: Peter Stuge To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] libusb-compat preference in virtual/libusb:0 not strong enough? Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <20130211151728.2557.qmail@stuge.se> <51190C5C.9000903@flameeyes.eu> <20130211164417.12789.qmail@stuge.se> <511920AF.9030106@flameeyes.eu> <20130211165440.13726.qmail@stuge.se> <511925BE.6050301@gentoo.org> 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: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <511925BE.6050301@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 8e925a18-820a-43cd-b03e-bda1cca1848b X-Archives-Hash: eff0e66c15e118dbd62c475c416e89fd Zac Medico wrote: > My guess is that there were one or more ebuilds that inappropriately > specified dev-libs/libusb:0 instead of virtual/libusb:0, and they have > since been fixed. I believe they were all changed some months ago, but it's of course still possible if either the snapshot was old or if a new ebuild uses dev-libs. //Peter