Dnia 2015-02-04, o godz. 09:49:02 Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 04/02/15 09:27 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > Dnia 2015-02-04, o godz. 14:41:06 Alexis Ballier > > <aball...@gentoo.org> napisał(a): > > > >> On Wed, 04 Feb 2015 14:30:56 +0100 Michał Górny > >> <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> It wasn't only weak but quite inconsistent too. Some packages > >>> had their own || deps, with different order. > >>> > >> > >> this was to reflect upstreams preferences > > > > The point is, the default was so weak that Portage's decision > > could have been randomly influenced by ordering of packages in > > depgraph. > > > > In other words, we didn't actually have a default, we just had a means > that portage would choose one of them if the end-user haddn't chosen > already. > > This to me is still the ideal solution (not the || deps due to the > issues they have, but the soft default) -- why is it that we need to > actually choose or force a default implementation in the profiles anyhow?? Because binary flag has to have a value :P. And anyway, having a default has the advantage that people don't have to bother when they don't care. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
pgpabqog1aiSm.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
