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 DB642138CA2 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 06:54:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8DA3FE0924; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 06:54:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com (mail-wi0-f172.google.com [209.85.212.172]) (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 634AAE079B for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 06:54:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wizk4 with SMTP id k4so165715508wiz.1 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 23:54:02 -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=4rkEdKOtZKsS2u3pilUuA4DQt4/6CFi/Shp9iQ5oJso=; b=nJDOb06LALF/24IeJu3xeHEGZ/Nsi8Hn1/DB8KLIB4OewUUOH7rahxKYWjNLu9LT3q kmGX8G5Mms9TEodXbc8HDEq/GSjs1rGY5L1p6L4VSgBsC18MaLRQKUAw/a8nV4aC4vVF N/LklLT9eARuRt9+oueRbLhUsWx8xdL+jXAzIq06K/WA7TOoiwtMjOQUnWQ1xAVbYmHT b/X8V+sKPnxY+W1F3Kh+ScVE12kFto23nnJeAPPo7yerHaSCFv+O4mCdX/1JOJDXDEmQ G+OLy2isSQ0mpPLzvaDziSu+j+wo1lHIN3DCFOm7JCYl1Wu3W8bFcw3noAdOjTnLsRuF RxJw== X-Received: by 10.195.12.138 with SMTP id eq10mr46649324wjd.65.1429685642618; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 23:54:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.20.0.40] (105-237-166-99.access.mtnbusiness.co.za. [105.237.166.99]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id dj5sm5865996wjb.28.2015.04.21.23.54.00 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 21 Apr 2015 23:54:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55374587.9060701@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 08:53:59 +0200 From: Alan McKinnon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 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> <55373B2E.80704@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <55373B2E.80704@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 9b382b5e-231f-4b4f-8728-6b6d304ff7da X-Archives-Hash: 56ffb4582842ba2a39fa4a764aa20d61 On 22/04/2015 08:09, Dale wrote: > 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 > > :-) :-) > Not totally. Pick which package you want and emerge it, portage knows you have something that satisfies the virtual and will be happy with it. If you don't use the main provider that's first in the list, like Alexander has here, then portage gets wordy when the provider is not yet stabilized. Take note, keyword it if you need to, and move along with the rest of your life. No need to mask all the other providers -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckinnon@gmail.com