1 |
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:12:04 +0100 |
2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:20:23 +0300 |
5 |
> Mart Raudsepp <leio@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
> > > The 'standard' behaviour (which can be changed by the user) for |
7 |
> > > Paludis when doing "complete" resolutions is that whenever there's |
8 |
> > > a slot of something installed, it will try to bring in the newest |
9 |
> > > version of that package, even if it's in a different slot. This is |
10 |
> > > generally a good thing, since newer versions are supposed to be |
11 |
> > > better than older versions. The problem is that now "newer" |
12 |
> > > versions are being used to mean "with a different Ruby |
13 |
> > > implementation" or "built in a different way", which screws up the |
14 |
> > > meaning. |
15 |
> > |
16 |
> > Don't do that if the slotted package in question is not in the |
17 |
> > @world, and all packages depending on it strictly require the older |
18 |
> > SLOT. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> That is an option Paludis provides for users, but doing so leads to |
21 |
> old versions of things lying around when an upgrade is preferred. |
22 |
|
23 |
When exactly ? You took the gcc example, but it does not have a slot |
24 |
specified in the 'packages' file so should be upgraded regardless of |
25 |
slot. |
26 |
|
27 |
> It's also incorrect behaviour when multiple slots are capable of |
28 |
> satisfying a dependency. |
29 |
|
30 |
I suppose that is what Mart meant with 'strictly require'. |
31 |
|
32 |
I do not know about ruby stuff, but the gtk2/gtk3 case seems a |
33 |
non-issue to me. |
34 |
|
35 |
- No slot specified -> best version available, slot independent. |
36 |
- Slot specified -> best version in said slot. |
37 |
- Upgrade to new version in a different slot iff something brings in the |
38 |
new slot. |
39 |
|
40 |
If your heuristic brings in gtk3 when everything depends on gtk2, you |
41 |
should probably rethink your heuristic. |
42 |
|
43 |
A. |