| 1 |
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 09:00:13PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:40:20 -0700 Greg KH <gregkh@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> | > gentoo-sources24 |
| 4 |
> | > gentoo-sources26 |
| 5 |
> | |
| 6 |
> | I don't have a problem with this, but the dependancy stuff might not |
| 7 |
> | work out properly for some odd kernel-based userspace packages. |
| 8 |
> | |
| 9 |
> | Anyone object to this? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Well, it's pretty nasty... Part of the idea of SLOTs is that we never |
| 12 |
> need to include version numbers in packages... In fact our docs [1] even |
| 13 |
> say: |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> > Most distributions and ports systems tend to have a "freetype" package |
| 16 |
> > for freetype 1.x and "freetype2" for 2.x. We consider this approach a |
| 17 |
> > sign of a fundamentally broken package management system. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Do we really want to admit that our package manager is broken? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
But then what is preventing us from having both a 2.4 and 2.6 version of |
| 22 |
gentoo-sources? Is it the following statement in that same file: |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Currently, slots cannot be used to install multiple instances of |
| 25 |
the same version of a package. When it will be possible, one |
| 26 |
could even install the same version of gcc multiple times (for |
| 27 |
instance to build cross-compilers for different architectures). |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Or is it something else that I'm just not aware of? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
thanks, |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
greg k-h |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives