| 1 |
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 21:25:22 +0200 |
| 2 |
Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> I like that! Kudos for making it work! |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> I just wonder what the heck that has to do with SLOT. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
The correct fix for "not needing to rebuild" stuff is to SLOT libraries |
| 8 |
like crazy, and have a SLOT per thing-we-don't-call-ABI. This then |
| 9 |
needs := dependencies, so that packages can say "and remember which |
| 10 |
SLOT I was built against". |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
However, there are some packages that cannot easily be SLOTted to the |
| 13 |
degree that we'd like. This is where sub-SLOTs come in. Given |
| 14 |
sub-SLOTted packages dep:1/a and dep:1/b, this says "I'd like to have |
| 15 |
slots 1a and 1b, but it's too difficult to allow 1a and 1b to be |
| 16 |
installed at the same time". |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
So suppose the user has pkg with a dependency upon dep, with slot 1 and |
| 19 |
a := operator. They install pkg when dep:1/a is installed. The user |
| 20 |
then installs dep:1/b. In an ideal world, dep:1/a would remain |
| 21 |
installed in parallel with dep:1/b, but your friendly Gentoo developers |
| 22 |
have decided it's not worth their time to allow this. Thus, dep:1/a has |
| 23 |
to be uninstalled to allow dep:1/b to be installed. But this would |
| 24 |
break pkg, since pkg needs dep:1/a. However, a clever dependency |
| 25 |
resolver can note that reinstalling pkg would fix it, since dep:1/b |
| 26 |
also satisfies pkg's slot 1 := dependency (but not the locked 1/a |
| 27 |
dependency that the installed version of pkg has picked up). |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives