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 65BA3138CA2 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 07:02:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B90A4E092D; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 07:02:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qk0-f175.google.com (mail-qk0-f175.google.com [209.85.220.175]) (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 9BCA8E0899 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 07:02:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qku63 with SMTP id 63so224951306qku.3 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 00:02:45 -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=lflSA8OJ5wPqOsqLSrltPGHcbXgJSFK3s6+HbKmmsVE=; b=wOkNJY4cv7CnO/xg/L40X05CiEvWEGGE3lSKl1WM3lwGEJHinSk4HpbmlKo0jJGtjH JD82PQgoqRDLRAKauqRLJiogCuhgKXAoz2hkNrfRONXkCeBLMWZ+OpTcja495NaG9Lvm UHlnOltu9OqqhvjAcvcemvGfFqwKHX2hk1osYw+fWqgLZlf8f7tTXM+bS+Bgvxmx6Yl3 qg7QN0GRRd7BikoJR+P7lh5aOrjuZB1ZbtXOaWJ4pChsBGy0lbcEEgITg1Nk/YDnB38e wF3uMhioCh51PxuW0aNYn+CnKjvGlXJslsz4nR/hc2yUrDZssnflKGBGI/WJ2gPMcqmO qEbA== X-Received: by 10.55.21.31 with SMTP id f31mr45516289qkh.95.1429686165101; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 00:02:45 -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 j66sm3141873qgf.25.2015.04.22.00.02.43 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 22 Apr 2015 00:02:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55374793.2010900@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 02:02:43 -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> <55373B2E.80704@gmail.com> <55374587.9060701@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <55374587.9060701@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 6e053543-5f14-4760-aac7-04ab349691bd X-Archives-Hash: 805e81b8a16623a13560ac7ea84d8154 Alan McKinnon wrote: > 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 > > Whew!! Had me worried for a minute there. Dale :-) :-)