On Wednesday 25 January 2006 15:53, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:28:09 -0800 Donnie Berkholz > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | > * The clean solution is the solution originally proposed to this > | > list, and the reason we are using new style virtuals. > | > | No, this is wrong. The reason we are using new style virtuals is so we > | could have a versioning in what provides virtual/x11. Namely, 6.8 or > | older. > > Uh, given that you can do that with old style virtuals, methinks that > isn't the case...
Only by modifying every ebuild that has a virtual/x11 dependency. The atom "virtual/x11" cannot be limited to specific versions on its own with old style virtuals. > | > * You are doing this because you believe that it is better to get > | > every package ported over extremely quickly rather than having the > | > odd package with extra unnecessary listed dependencies, and you do > | > not consider the impact upon our users to be relevant. > | > | I consider ~arch users to have agreed to help test and fix new things. > | This is included. I would not do the same thing to our stable tree, or > | if we only had a stable tree. > | > | Yes, I do think it is better to have a quick solution and let some of > | our ~arch users see a couple of blocks, for which they will file bugs. > | Then these bugs will be fixed within a day, and those users will again > | have working systems. > > ...or you could do things as originally planned, and have no > non-working systems at all and the only consequences for end users will > be a small number of extra packages (that they previously had installed > anyway as part of hugeass X) being pulled in. The premise for not doing this is that packages will never be fixed, right? Why not make the modular X provide virtual/x11 and just institute a policy that no new packages can go into stable with a virtual/x11 dependency? It could even be easily enforcable if necessary. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
