| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 09/02/13 07:52 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Sat, 09 Feb 2013 23:38:35 +1100 Michael Palimaka |
| 6 |
> <kensington@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
>> I even noticed some maintainers adding subslots dependencies on |
| 9 |
>> libraries that do not yet define subslots. This too seems |
| 10 |
>> reasonable, given that there would be no impact until the library |
| 11 |
>> defines a (sensible) subslot in the future. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> By the way, this could also be discussed: I did not check, but as |
| 14 |
> far as I understand it subslot is equal to slot if not defined. |
| 15 |
> When said library defines a subslot, the subslot will change and |
| 16 |
> thus triggers a (likely useless) rebuild of your package setting a |
| 17 |
> := dep. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Alexis. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
That isn't so much of a concern, imo, as the sub-slot introduction |
| 23 |
(and therefore change) will most likely not occur on a library until |
| 24 |
that library is bumped (ie, when an upgrade occurs on the library and |
| 25 |
therefore also a rebuild of rdeps) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 29 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlEZENUACgkQ2ugaI38ACPDKtAD8CLuyIbPH7yhzYj0hsShlLgkU |
| 32 |
LJkJCrtnureSz9dyUPgA/R0GMc71Oys9K62E6p+Qye+xg1AQdP8iEj6IHSFhzv0+ |
| 33 |
=sxVB |
| 34 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives