| 1 |
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 12:25:40 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 12:08:21 +0200 |
| 5 |
> Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > On the other hand, if we start always setting the available slots |
| 7 |
> > that we know to work, we can avoid this issue, and this is also |
| 8 |
> > completely future proof becase I don't think we can assume that |
| 9 |
> > package B will always work with the latest available SLOT package A |
| 10 |
> > can have in the future. Then, applying the same policy of we trying |
| 11 |
> > to set the versions in dependencies to the versions we know are |
| 12 |
> > compatible, we should do the same with the slot. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> You know, there's this thing called a :* slot dependency... |
| 15 |
> Originally, the intent was that any dependency which might match more |
| 16 |
> than one slot would explicitly use an operator, and that repoman |
| 17 |
> would enforce it. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
repoman warns when it *does* match more than one slot; maybe it should |
| 20 |
warn when it *might* ? |
Archives