1 |
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:22:37 +0100 |
2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:23:13 +0200 |
5 |
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
> > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:06:38 +0100 |
7 |
> > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
8 |
> > > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:09:03 +0200 |
9 |
> > > Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
10 |
> > > > > That's just it, though -- this no longer holds. -r300 is now |
11 |
> > > > > being used for something that is exactly the same version as |
12 |
> > > > > -r200. |
13 |
> > > > |
14 |
> > > > Did you look at SONAME? |
15 |
> > > |
16 |
> > > Look at SONAME before deciding what package to install? Kindly |
17 |
> > > explain how that works. |
18 |
> > |
19 |
> > I'm just saying that these are two different versions of the |
20 |
> > package. If you want GTK+3, you take the newer one. If you want |
21 |
> > GTK+2 compat, you take the older slot. What's wrong with that? |
22 |
> |
23 |
> The package mangler does not know that 1.1-r300 is not a "better" |
24 |
> version than 1.1-r200, or that 1.2-r200 is not a "better" version than |
25 |
> 1.1-r300. Indicating packages where this kind of strangeness happens |
26 |
> allows manglers to know that things that are usually true about the |
27 |
> relationship between slots and versions no longer hold, and that in |
28 |
> these specific cases it should consider slots to be heavily |
29 |
> independent. |
30 |
|
31 |
It *is* a 'better' version, much like gtk+-3.* is 'better' than |
32 |
gtk+-2.*. |
33 |
|
34 |
-- |
35 |
Best regards, |
36 |
Michał Górny |