On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 01:54:30 +0200 Nikos Chantziaras <rea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13/03/12 00:34, »Q« wrote: > > On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 22:29:10 +0200 > > Alan McKinnon<alan.mckin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Anyone care to offer an opinion on what it will take to get > >> PROVIDES support in portage? > > > > IMO, it would take virtuals causing so many headachy breakages that > > some devs started keeping up a steady drumbeat on irc and mailing > > lists. When the number of virtual packages gets close to a > > thousand, I'd guess that might happen. Then there would be years > > of discussion and GLEP proposals, and by EAPI 207 it should be > > done. > > The problem isn't the amount of virtuals. This doesn't affect the > users much. I expect more virtuals will mean more bugs affecting users. I don't know how hairy they will be, but here's one ugly example: <https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=398295>. It's unresolved, but less has been added back to @system so stage 3 tarballs aren't broken for now. (I guess this could have happened with provides as well.) > It's the inability for people to offer replacement > packages in overlays. Yeah, I see.
