| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Hamish wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Yeah. Again too many places to make changes, it doesn't lend itself to |
| 7 |
> swapping back & forth. Shame many other packages have the concept of multiple |
| 8 |
> versions. I'm not sure why X should be treated differently. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Slotting versions of packages that are not meant to be installed in |
| 11 |
parallel by upstream puts quite some load on the developers who are |
| 12 |
maintaining those packages. There are some situations where the |
| 13 |
majority (or at least a sufficient number) of users benefit from |
| 14 |
that and there this effort is being made. I don't see any real |
| 15 |
advantage in doing so for X.org.The way slotted installations are |
| 16 |
handled wouldn't even benefit you for testing CVS snapshots at all. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> It was simple with the default X location. I guess the package maintainer |
| 19 |
> disagrees with me though. It was closed with a WONTFIX status. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I think you forgot to mention here that he also gave you quite an |
| 22 |
easy way to actually test your snapshots. Anybody else interested |
| 23 |
please take a look at http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=138472 |
| 24 |
Please give references to things outside this mailing list that you |
| 25 |
are talking about so people who want to check don't have to search |
| 26 |
for themselves ;) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Michael |
| 29 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 30 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (GNU/Linux) |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
iD8DBQFEpMHt6q4f+IV6B/wRAsKfAJ9mUSjG9aQ6pv7MkwVLlDEJ0H1dHgCeKycf |
| 33 |
zhouwukswuOELNsfMj3OAF8= |
| 34 |
=sCVP |
| 35 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |
Archives