On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 08/15/11 21:55, Michał Górny wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 12:46:59 -0700
>> Alec Warner wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Michał Górny
>>> wrote:
Hello,
Now that we don't have any old-style virtuals in gx86
On 08/15/2011 11:41 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Now that we don't have any old-style virtuals in gx86 anymore,
> I think the 'virtual' category is basically one another plain category
> nowadays.
In sys-apps/portage, the "virtual" category is used as a hint to the
dependency resolver it
110815 Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 08/15/11 21:55, Michał Górny wrote:
>> Considering the number of different virtuals in this category,
>> maybe it would be a good idea to split it a little?
>> -- maybe creating some kind of '*-virtual' categories.
>> For example, half of the current virtuals are pr
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 12:11 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Considering the number of different virtuals in this category, maybe it
> would be a good idea to split it a little? What I'm proposing is maybe
> creating some kind of '*-virtual' categories.
>
> For example, half of the current virtuals are
On 08/15/11 21:55, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 12:46:59 -0700
> Alec Warner wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Michał Górny
>> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Now that we don't have any old-style virtuals in gx86 anymore,
>>> I think the 'virtual' category is basically one ano
On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 12:46:59 -0700
Alec Warner wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Michał Górny
> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Now that we don't have any old-style virtuals in gx86 anymore,
> > I think the 'virtual' category is basically one another plain
> > category nowadays.
> >
> > Consi
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Now that we don't have any old-style virtuals in gx86 anymore,
> I think the 'virtual' category is basically one another plain category
> nowadays.
>
> Considering the number of different virtuals in this category, maybe it
> would
Hello,
Now that we don't have any old-style virtuals in gx86 anymore,
I think the 'virtual' category is basically one another plain category
nowadays.
Considering the number of different virtuals in this category, maybe it
would be a good idea to split it a little? What I'm proposing is maybe
cre