| 1 |
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:36:14 +0200 |
| 2 |
Marien Zwart <marienz@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On za, 2012-06-23 at 17:08 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > Is it that Paludis installs a newer SLOT even if a reverse |
| 5 |
> > dependency |
| 6 |
> > > explicitly requests another SLOT? Sounds like a bug to me. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > No, it's that if a user requests a "complete" resolution, Paludis |
| 9 |
> > installs the newest version of things that it can. Extensive |
| 10 |
> > consultation with users has shown that this is a good behaviour, |
| 11 |
> > except |
| 12 |
> > in the small number of situations that have recently arisen where |
| 13 |
> > people are doing weird things with versions and slots. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> It surprises me that this behavior is normally desirable for packages |
| 16 |
> where all dependencies (including any in the world set or the like) |
| 17 |
> are slotted. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Think || ( a:3 a:2 ). |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives