| 1 |
On Wednesday 12 April 2006 03:38, Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tuesday 11 April 2006 19:13, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Tuesday 11 April 2006 10:52, Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > Please remember, this is the reason we have SLOTS |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > no it isnt |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > you're complaining about lack of a portage feature to track ABI's and |
| 9 |
> > urging the use of hacks in ebuilds to work around it |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> While I agree that SLOT's are not perfect, they were created to solve this |
| 12 |
> problem too. If another working solution is found, that is ok for me too. |
| 13 |
> But I don't want to just find my binary stops working because some of its |
| 14 |
> libraries were removed from under it. Those libraries can coexist, so we |
| 15 |
> should keep them to give users an opportunity to upgrade their applications |
| 16 |
> to the new one. Only at that point do they become inappropriate. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
so you preserve the lib with the preserve_old_lib* functions in eutils.eclass |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
going around SLOTing random crap just adds overhead and makes using the |
| 21 |
package a huge pita ... it hurts a lot more than it helps |
| 22 |
-mike |
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives