On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> 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
>
> :-)  :-)
>
>

https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=546902