- perhaps old style virtuals should be marked deprecated - explain what KEYWORDS on a new-style virtual should look like - explain how a new style virtual is introduced to the tree, ie. what should happen to the packages depending on the virtual
Ulrich, did you have something to add since you've been working on this for the gentoo-x86 tree?
(In reply to comment #1) > Ulrich, did you have something to add since you've been working on this for > the gentoo-x86 tree? Generally, I suck at writing documentation, so I won't come up with a patch/wording here. Some points that could be added to Thilo's list: - Keywording/stabilisation rules for new-style virtuals, basically: * can be keyworded and stabilised by maintainer when at least one of its providers has the corresponding keyword * arch teams are generally not involved (nothing that they could test for a virtual) * no need for 1 month waiting period See thread in -dev in 2007. The following posting more or less summarises it: <http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_c4c3b0f1cb46de12d1ddee62218578ed.xml> - How to remove a new style virtual? (Fix its reverse dependencies and just remove it? Or are a "last rites" message and package masking needed?)
Created attachment 270897 [details, diff] deprecate old-style virtuals (In reply to comment #2) > Generally, I suck at writing documentation, so I won't come up with a > patch/wording here. Actually, here's a patch for the "deprecate old-style" part. Please review.
Created attachment 272017 [details, diff] deprecate old-style virtuals With old-style virtuals finally banned from the tree, the wording can become much simpler. Updated patch attached.
Comment on attachment 272017 [details, diff] deprecate old-style virtuals (In reply to comment #4) > Created attachment 272017 [details, diff] > deprecate old-style virtuals > > With old-style virtuals finally banned from the tree, the wording can become > much simpler. Updated patch attached. pushed. thx
This is already fixed
