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 A2C35138CA2 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 06:10:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 730AAE08D9; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 06:09:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qk0-f178.google.com (mail-qk0-f178.google.com [209.85.220.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A629E0885 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 06:09:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qkhg7 with SMTP id g7so224098113qkh.2 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 23:09:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=r4kIaMoNZmPOQo4XOdjJAzeJ9nKAAME0A8tUU7k7hbg=; b=P1o3y2lGpf2++ERY0soKtwazfgYikEIM1qY3afayiLl2uOOP/Lmwv/oohnafzh+jNk BttxH1Ljlt010DdpxNCzB5oxPq/1tZRnFzjFyL+A7SrYjVRsuJc9k8/4M5nb+jYenTil nJnk0FkcQczi70ArIHAP6haMUBEyuAIdKztH5pVzMp2o5oosEh25KLDGiZiPycqmO3+6 EZ7B8fQ+CnLuwOj7SZYEHZw87PdZ414qZHNKPcr6VRA2xEltcU8uJCz9u+3/WH8N/Ws3 MSVAhrvQt8TTju/d4pEuKzYfZo2DY90081otSqgyix5llS7k8IRIsLfwE7wZGD99kkzk ofzA== X-Received: by 10.229.193.69 with SMTP id dt5mr14322119qcb.3.1429682992683; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 23:09:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.5] (adsl-98-95-128-251.jan.bellsouth.net. [98.95.128.251]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 7sm3069273qhb.10.2015.04.21.23.09.51 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 21 Apr 2015 23:09:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55373B2E.80704@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 01:09:50 -0500 From: Dale User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:35.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/35.0 SeaMonkey/2.32 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] stable java virtuals require unstable java packages References: <5535E331.1040508@gmail.com> <553734A7.2080608@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <553734A7.2080608@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 2cbbcec3-2c4a-40a3-836e-254668e51094 X-Archives-Hash: 6060eb74d23b62d6a2f1b7ff8355a60a Alan McKinnon wrote: > Turns out the virtual is working as designed - see Andreas's post > above I recall now a discussion on -dev about this ages ago, and a > consensus emerged then to keep things as they currently are (changing > it requires much effort and has all manner of effects on the tree). > The actual rule is: A virtual can (by definition) be stable as soon as > one of its providers is stable. So if we really don't want one of the other packages that satisfies what the virtual needs, we need to mask the others locally? Great. :/ Dale :-) :-)