Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Marking virtuals stable

[Graham Murray <graham@gmurray.org.uk>]

"Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@gentoo.org> writes:

> for a virtual pointing to packages foo and bar, only one of them needs
> to be stable before the virtual can be marked as stable, right?
> So your above comment should read "if a virtual points to packages foo
> and bar, and [either foo or bar was] tested and marked stable by the
> arch's previously, that its silly to then wait for them to mark the
> virtual stable as well", right?

At first sight what you say sounds right, but further thought shows that
both foo and bar would have to be marked stable before the virtual could
be.

Take the instance that the appropriate version of foo is marked stable
but that for bar is still in ~arch. If someone has foo installed then
upgrading the virtual will pull in the new (stable) foo and all is
well. However if someone else has bar installed but not foo, then the
upgrade to the virtual will not cause bar to be upgraded (as it is still
masked ~arch) but will cause the upgraded foo to be installed (as a new
package) to satisfy the virtual. Or have I (as a mere user)
misunderstood the concepts of virtuals?
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list