| 1 |
On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 01:09:38 +1100 |
| 2 |
Michael Palimaka <kensington@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 9/02/2013 23:52, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Sat, 09 Feb 2013 23:38:35 +1100 |
| 6 |
> > Michael Palimaka <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 |
| 17 |
> > a := dep. |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > Alexis. |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Yeah. This behaviour can be avoided by introducing the explicit |
| 24 |
> subslot only when the subslot would otherwise need bumping. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I would not count on that as this would mean extra care has to be taken |
| 27 |
when adding a subslot. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Alexis. |
Archives