List Archive: gentoo-dev
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:16:42 -0700
> Alec Warner <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> I don't think the documentation forbids what these developers are
> "This means that counting goes as follows: 1.0 (initial version),
> 1.0-r1, 1.0-r2, etc."
> It's not illegal, but it's also not in line with how versions and slots
> have interacted up until now.
I agree and I sympathize with your position.
>> I think you implemented a nice heuristic for your users in your
>> resolver that used to work because slots had a typical set of users
>> cases and the heuristic performed well in those cases.
>> Now people are occasionally using slots in a different way and your
>> heuristic penalizes those cases. That sucks, but you might have to
>> actually change your resolver because I don't think 'funky-slots'
>> properties is going to garner much adoption.
> You mean, instead of implementing trivial marking, which takes
> developers a few seconds, you want to screw over users? I think that
> says a lot about Gentoo's attitude...
I don't think portage has the behavior that paludis does, so most
users are not likely to experience this particular problem. You know
as well as I that the marking isn't necessarily trivial. Its another
thing we have to document and train people to use. I don't think users
get 'screwed over' either.
It could be that instead of Gentoo tagging a bunch of ebuilds, you
just change your resolver heuristic a bit.
> Ciaran McCreesh