| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 16/10/13 09:11 AM, hasufell wrote: |
| 5 |
> On 10/16/2013 02:59 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 6 |
>> 4. You *can not* trust portage's --dynamic-deps anymore. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
>> This one is fairly important. In the past, we often assumed that |
| 9 |
>> portage will 'update' deps from ebuilds automatically. This is |
| 10 |
>> no longer correct if sub-slots are used -- since portage simply |
| 11 |
>> can't know which sub-slot of the dependency was used to build |
| 12 |
>> the package. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> so we should always revbump when introducing subslots? |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Yes, but that's been recommended since the onset of EAPI=5 and |
| 18 |
sub-slot/slot-operator deps, so hopefully this is nothing new. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 21 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlJeu24ACgkQ2ugaI38ACPAYEwD/S5I90mGXS3+z3jdflC5YoKi/ |
| 24 |
VUaL67/Q2SowHBqa+hcA/jtLhOwC7TCGansk5EYNpcCzMhDF1ALh49K18kGUldae |
| 25 |
=Nbuy |
| 26 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives