On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Dale <rdalek1...@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
