1 |
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:36:14 +0200 |
2 |
Marien Zwart <marienz@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> On za, 2012-06-23 at 17:08 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
4 |
> > > Is it that Paludis installs a newer SLOT even if a reverse |
5 |
> > dependency |
6 |
> > > explicitly requests another SLOT? Sounds like a bug to me. |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > No, it's that if a user requests a "complete" resolution, Paludis |
9 |
> > installs the newest version of things that it can. Extensive |
10 |
> > consultation with users has shown that this is a good behaviour, |
11 |
> > except |
12 |
> > in the small number of situations that have recently arisen where |
13 |
> > people are doing weird things with versions and slots. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> It surprises me that this behavior is normally desirable for packages |
16 |
> where all dependencies (including any in the world set or the like) |
17 |
> are slotted. |
18 |
|
19 |
Think || ( a:3 a:2 ). |
20 |
|
21 |
-- |
22 |
Ciaran McCreesh |