Alan McKinnon wrote: > 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 > >
Whew!! Had me worried for a minute there. Dale :-) :-)
