| 1 |
On 08/05/2013 11:49 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> Dnia 2013-08-05, o godz. 12:33:45 |
| 3 |
> Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> napisał(a): |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> This is a friendly reminder. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> I've found the tree again to have dependencies like: |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> dev-libs/openssl:= |
| 10 |
>> virtual/jpeg:= |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> Neither of which are correct, since dev-libs/openssl has SLOT="0" and |
| 13 |
>> SLOT="0.9.8" and virtual/jpeg has SLOT="0" and SLOT="62". |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> Need to pull in the SLOT that installs headers: |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>> dev-libs/openssl:0= |
| 18 |
>> virtual/jpeg:0= |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>> Same logic applies to any package with also "binary-only SLOTs" that |
| 21 |
>> install libfoobar.so.1 and nothing else. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Sounds like it's easy to miss that someone added binary-only SLOTs |
| 24 |
> to a package. Is there anything we can do to improve this? |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Name the slot properly. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
62-binary |
Archives