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 1QDeFM-0003yP-2d for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 14:55:46 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8D37D1C021; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 14:55:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 975361C141 for ; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 14:47:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.101] (hnvr-4d07b258.pool.mediaWays.net [77.7.178.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: chithanh) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A48361B4017 for ; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 14:47:58 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4DB2E689.3010609@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 16:47:37 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?Q2jDrS1UaGFuaCBDaHJpc3RvcGhlciBOZ3V54buFbg==?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.18) Gecko/20110403 Gentoo/2.0.13 SeaMonkey/2.0.13 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] reconciling new-style virtuals with overlays, was: RDEPENDing on packages from overlays? References: <4DB26C3C.8090602@gentoo.org> <4DB2A9CD.7010708@gentoo.org> <20110423123235.1d618818@googlemail.com> <4DB2D3E4.9080005@gentoo.org> <20110423143709.4aa18f6a@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <20110423143709.4aa18f6a@googlemail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 9be40fdccac0ae2ace180af34680294d Ciaran McCreesh schrieb: > On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 15:28:04 +0200 > Ch=C3=AD-Thanh Christopher Nguy=E1=BB=85n wrote: > =20 >> 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? >> =20 > 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 What I propose solves the problems that old-style virtuals introduce in dependency resolution. What other problems do they cause? Regards, Chi-Thanh Christopher Nguyen