Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Mart Raudsepp <leio@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 14:21:19
Message-Id: 1340461223.21515.39.camel@daedalus.lan
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots by Ciaran McCreesh
On L, 2012-06-23 at 15:10 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:06:58 -0400 > Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote: > > > I don't quite understand why this would be necessary. > > > > > > Would "funky-slots" just be used in situations where ebuilds with > > > the same PV but different PVR have different slots? > > > > > > Taking the gtk2/gtk3 example, I think the -r200/-r300 thing is only > > > used in libraries; applications use slot deps to select which one > > > they need. Paludis should not remove the -r200 version if it is > > > still referenced in the depgraph, correct? > > > > Or maybe you are saying that Paludis will not automatically install a > > new slot for a package that is already installed, even when referenced > > by a slot dep? > > The 'standard' behaviour (which can be changed by the user) for Paludis > when doing "complete" resolutions is that whenever there's a slot of > something installed, it will try to bring in the newest version of that > package, even if it's in a different slot. This is generally a good > thing, since newer versions are supposed to be better than older > versions. The problem is that now "newer" versions are being used to > mean "with a different Ruby implementation" or "built in a different > way", which screws up the meaning.
Don't do that if the slotted package in question is not in the @world, and all packages depending on it strictly require the older SLOT.


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>