| 1 |
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:51:01 +0200 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> I think you should start by describing the problem so we all could |
| 4 |
> understand it, and then we can start thinking about a solution. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
It's simple: abusing versions and slots invalidates what is otherwise |
| 7 |
sensible logic. Thus in the long term we need to stop abusing versions |
| 8 |
and slots, and in the short term a mechanism is needed to indicate |
| 9 |
where this abuse happens. This is the short term fix. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> Is it that Paludis installs a newer SLOT even if a reverse dependency |
| 12 |
> explicitly requests another SLOT? Sounds like a bug to me. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
No, it's that if a user requests a "complete" resolution, Paludis |
| 15 |
installs the newest version of things that it can. Extensive |
| 16 |
consultation with users has shown that this is a good behaviour, except |
| 17 |
in the small number of situations that have recently arisen where |
| 18 |
people are doing weird things with versions and slots. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives