| 1 |
On 5/08/2013 21:58, Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 05/08/13 13:56, Michael Palimaka wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 5/08/2013 19:33, Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> This is a friendly reminder. |
| 5 |
>>> |
| 6 |
>>> I've found the tree again to have dependencies like: |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>> dev-libs/openssl:= |
| 9 |
>>> virtual/jpeg:= |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> Is there any reason for the subslot operator being specified at all? I |
| 12 |
>> don't see those packages defining any subslots. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> You don't need to see it, because portage sets implicit subslot /0 in |
| 15 |
> EAPI="5" so it's there, even if you don't see it. |
| 16 |
> Then when it's changed (= set), the effect is same. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> - Samuli |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Even though the subslot is implicit, is that any reason to still use the |
| 24 |
operator? We don't know what the maintainer's future intentions for the |
| 25 |
subslot will be. |
| 26 |
For example, we caused many useless rebuilds with poppler because |
| 27 |
dependants added the subslot operator without consideration (many |
| 28 |
packages link only against one of the stable interface libraries, rather |
| 29 |
than the main library for which the subslot was intended). |
Archives