| 1 |
On 9/02/2013 23:52, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 09 Feb 2013 23:38:35 +1100 |
| 3 |
> Michael Palimaka <kensington@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> I even noticed some maintainers adding subslots dependencies on |
| 6 |
>> libraries that do not yet define subslots. This too seems reasonable, |
| 7 |
>> given that there would be no impact until the library defines a |
| 8 |
>> (sensible) subslot in the future. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> By the way, this could also be discussed: I did not check, but as far |
| 11 |
> as I understand it subslot is equal to slot if not defined. When said |
| 12 |
> library defines a subslot, the subslot will change and thus triggers a |
| 13 |
> (likely useless) rebuild of your package setting a := dep. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Alexis. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Yeah. This behaviour can be avoided by introducing the explicit subslot |
| 20 |
only when the subslot would otherwise need bumping. |
Archives