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 1QDacc-0003KV-Cc for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 11:03:30 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B949C1C05C; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 11:03:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E2491C033 for ; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 11:02:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.26.4] (ip98-164-193-252.oc.oc.cox.net [98.164.193.252]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: zmedico) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9A3A51B404D for ; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 11:02:53 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4DB2B1C0.2050708@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 04:02:24 -0700 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110403 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.9 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RDEPENDing on packages from overlays? References: <4DB26C3C.8090602@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <4DB26C3C.8090602@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 8c08bf57c70205502d51f3618edce3c9 On 04/22/2011 11:05 PM, Eray Aslan wrote: > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=364445 > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=364401 > > Basically, there are requests to add packages to RDEPEND in virtual/mda > and virtual/mta that are not in the official tree but in sunrise. > > On one side, *DEPENDing on a package outside the tree doesn't seem > right. Additionally, keeping track of all the overlays and their > package versions, USE flags and flag changes are potentially too much to > track. We will be making changes to a virtual package without testing > whether it works. I would assume that it's the overlay maintainers' responsibility to test and report any problems. Any such problems would should affect the overlay users, so it shouldn't cause any regression for users who don't choose to use the overlay. > On the other hand, we are making life (unneccesarily?) difficult for > overlay users by not incorporating the requested changes to the official > tree. I don't imagine it's that much work to maintain a fork of the virtual. It's just an inconvenience for users since the version from the overlay might become temporarily outdated and cause problems with dependency resolution. > Comments on how to proceed? Either way is fine. It's just a matter of whether or not collaboration with the overlay is worthy of your time. > Is it OK for a virtual to list a package > which is in an overlay in RDEPEND? Yes, that's fine. For || dependencies, repoman will be satisfied as long as there at least one provider available for a given profile. -- Thanks, Zac