On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:12:04 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@...> wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:20:23 +0300
> Mart Raudsepp <leio@g.o> wrote:
> > > The 'standard' behaviour (which can be changed by the user) for
> > > Paludis when doing "complete" resolutions is that whenever there's
> > > a slot of something installed, it will try to bring in the newest
> > > version of that package, even if it's in a different slot. This is
> > > generally a good thing, since newer versions are supposed to be
> > > better than older versions. The problem is that now "newer"
> > > versions are being used to mean "with a different Ruby
> > > implementation" or "built in a different way", which screws up the
> > > meaning.
> > 
> > Don't do that if the slotted package in question is not in the
> > @world, and all packages depending on it strictly require the older
> > SLOT.
> 
> That is an option Paludis provides for users, but doing so leads to
> old versions of things lying around when an upgrade is preferred.

When exactly ? You took the gcc example, but it does not have a slot
specified in the 'packages' file so should be upgraded regardless of
slot.

> It's also incorrect behaviour when multiple slots are capable of
> satisfying a dependency.

I suppose that is what Mart meant with 'strictly require'.

I do not know about ruby stuff, but the gtk2/gtk3 case seems a
non-issue to me.

- No slot specified -> best version available, slot independent.
- Slot specified -> best version in said slot.
- Upgrade to new version in a different slot iff something brings in the
  new slot.

If your heuristic brings in gtk3 when everything depends on gtk2, you
should probably rethink your heuristic.

A.