| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Wednesday 25 August 2004 21:00, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> Well, it's pretty nasty... Part of the idea of SLOTs is that we never |
| 6 |
> need to include version numbers in packages... In fact our docs [1] even |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> say: |
| 9 |
> > Most distributions and ports systems tend to have a "freetype" package |
| 10 |
> > for freetype 1.x and "freetype2" for 2.x. We consider this approach a |
| 11 |
> > sign of a fundamentally broken package management system. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Do we really want to admit that our package manager is broken? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
It is nasty, yes, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's broken, rather a |
| 16 |
documented limitation has been met. |
| 17 |
The 2 paragraphs following your quote states areas for improvement. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
| Sometimes Portage forces users to upgrade their applications to the most |
| 20 |
recent version even if the version they have installed is in a different |
| 21 |
slot. Moreover, for those who write ebuilds it is not possible to express the |
| 22 |
dependency on a specific slot of a package. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> [1]: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/portage-manual.xml |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
- -- |
| 27 |
Mike Williams |
| 28 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 29 |
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
iD8DBQFBLPONInuLMrk7bIwRAjlIAJ98WVvNhWqztrLQtZwOnXYDzNO3WgCdH0Eb |
| 32 |
EzdT1leLuMfy4AWPzSxRB6I= |
| 33 |
=I6Iz |
| 34 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives