| 1 |
On 2013-02-11, at 3:53 PM, James Cloos <cloos@×××××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>>>>>> "AB" == Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> writes: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> AB> Well, if we have to advertise the usage of this option that basically |
| 6 |
> AB> disables subslot rebuilds, it only means we are doing something |
| 7 |
> AB> seriously wrong with subslots :=) |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> So far, I've found the sub slots to be more of a pain in the ass than |
| 10 |
> helpful. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> They get in the way of things like automated 'emerge --sync;emerge -upvDN', |
| 13 |
> since portage craps out complaining about the subslots rather than showing |
| 14 |
> the list of what need to be built. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Perhaps that is just an implementation detail to be worked out, but for now |
| 17 |
> they haven't done anything helpful here. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
this must be an implementation detail... |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
the point of subslots and slot operators is to allow the revdep-rebuilds to be inlined so that low library updates don't break later application emerges during the -uDN ... the output should be the same as a "emerge -uDNpv world" plus a "revdep-rebuild -p" once everything is subslotted... |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
it shouldn't affect your usual emerge process beyond that. is the conflict that emerge craps out on a subslot specific thing or is it a regular slot conflict made harder to read? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> -JimC |
| 29 |
> -- |
| 30 |
> James Cloos <cloos@×××××××.com> OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6 |
| 31 |
> |
Archives