On 04/23/2011 06:05 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2011, Thomas Sachau wrote: > >> If e.g. kde and sunrise overlay both provide an mta, they would both >> need a fork of virtual/mta. Now one of those forks will be preferred >> and used, e.g. the kde one. This means, that you cannot install the >> mta from sunrise to satisfy the virtual without additional manual >> work. > > So far this is only a hypothetical example, as there is no MTA package > in the KDE overlay. As long as sunrise is the only overlay providing > such a package, I don't see how maintaining a fork of the virtual > would be problematic. Any collision scenarios can be solved when they > really arise (if ever). > >> The only way to solve this properly without asking the user to >> manually adjust things is to just add all mtas from overlays (maybe >> restricted to dev-controlled or -managed overlays) to virtual/mta in >> the main tree. > > The additional entries in the any-of-many dependency are not an issue. > But the problem that I see with this approach is that a maintainer of > a package depending on the virtual would have to test if his package > works with those additional dependencies from overlays. I'd rather not > impose such an additional burden upon maintainers of main tree > packages.
If people are going to use overlays to override the virtuals anyway, then the net effect is practically the same. The only difference is whether the new-style virtual is provided by the main tree or by the overlay. -- Thanks, Zac
