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 :-) :-)
