| 1 |
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 15:10:01 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:06:58 -0400 |
| 5 |
> Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > I don't quite understand why this would be necessary. |
| 7 |
> > > |
| 8 |
> > > Would "funky-slots" just be used in situations where ebuilds with |
| 9 |
> > > the same PV but different PVR have different slots? |
| 10 |
> > > |
| 11 |
> > > Taking the gtk2/gtk3 example, I think the -r200/-r300 thing is |
| 12 |
> > > only used in libraries; applications use slot deps to select |
| 13 |
> > > which one they need. Paludis should not remove the -r200 version |
| 14 |
> > > if it is still referenced in the depgraph, correct? |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > Or maybe you are saying that Paludis will not automatically install |
| 17 |
> > a new slot for a package that is already installed, even when |
| 18 |
> > referenced by a slot dep? |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> The 'standard' behaviour (which can be changed by the user) for |
| 21 |
> Paludis when doing "complete" resolutions is that whenever there's a |
| 22 |
> slot of something installed, it will try to bring in the newest |
| 23 |
> version of that package, even if it's in a different slot. This is |
| 24 |
> generally a good thing, since newer versions are supposed to be |
| 25 |
> better than older versions. The problem is that now "newer" versions |
| 26 |
> are being used to mean "with a different Ruby implementation" or |
| 27 |
> "built in a different way", which screws up the meaning. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I think you should start by describing the problem so we all could |
| 30 |
understand it, and then we can start thinking about a solution. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Is it that Paludis installs a newer SLOT even if a reverse dependency |
| 33 |
explicitly requests another SLOT? Sounds like a bug to me. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Best regards, |
| 37 |
Michał Górny |
Archives