| 1 |
On Aug 5, 2013 8:06 AM, "Ulrich Mueller" <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> >>>>> On Mon, 05 Aug 2013, Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > You don't need to see it, because portage sets implicit subslot /0 |
| 6 |
> > in EAPI="5" so it's there, even if you don't see it. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Shouldn't the implicit sub-slot be equal to the regular slot? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Ulrich |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
Yes, as per EAPI 5 [1], implicit sub-slots are equal to that of the regular |
| 13 |
slot. As these packages depend specifically on slot 0, the deps could be |
| 14 |
changed to virtual/jpeg:0 and virtual/openssl:0 respectively, and then |
| 15 |
updated later should another compatible slot come along (as they'd need to |
| 16 |
be anyway). Granted, you then lose the automatic rebuild if these packages |
| 17 |
start using subslots, so it's probably best to leave the slot operator dep. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-Doug |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
[1]: http://dev.gentoo.org/~ulm/pms/5/pms.html#x1-820008.2.6 |
Archives