| 1 |
On 19/09/15 12:36, hasufell wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hmm, you are suggesting to do this even for packages that only |
| 3 |
> have one SLOT anyway? I'm really not sure about this. Depending on |
| 4 |
> the SLOT-naming-scheme that will be introduced it may require |
| 5 |
> massive changes as well. It's hard to look into the future. I |
| 6 |
> personally think it is enough to do that for multislot packages. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I think, pro-actively considering the case of new slots makes sense |
| 10 |
because of the reasons stated. But I would suggest that we should go for |
| 11 |
"No SLOT set, the PM assumes :0". That way, the SLOT is fixed and no |
| 12 |
upgrade to the new version would happen, but we have lesser amount of |
| 13 |
SLOTs to set. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Justin |
Archives