On 22/04/2015 08:09, Dale 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 > > :-) :-) >
Not totally. Pick which package you want and emerge it, portage knows you have something that satisfies the virtual and will be happy with it. If you don't use the main provider that's first in the list, like Alexander has here, then portage gets wordy when the provider is not yet stabilized. Take note, keyword it if you need to, and move along with the rest of your life. No need to mask all the other providers -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
