| 1 |
On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 12:03:03 +0200 |
| 2 |
Rémi Cardona <remi@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Could anyone actually give a good reason for slot operators? What |
| 5 |
> packages would have a _clear_ benefit from using them? I'm asking for |
| 6 |
> an actual list of packages, not just some package that may exist in a |
| 7 |
> parallel universe. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
All package depending on dev-dotnet/gtk-sharp. Although these won't be |
| 10 |
parallel-installable slots, it will really easy the transition between |
| 11 |
versions and allow us to ease the currently quite strict |
| 12 |
interdependencies between the various packages that make up the |
| 13 |
gtk-sharp, gnome-sharp and gnome-desktop-sharp tarballs, where all |
| 14 |
versions of all packages are bound to a single gtk-sharp major version |
| 15 |
(2.12 at the moment). Currently we handle bumps in api by bumping every |
| 16 |
package in this trifecta from hell. That way, users only have to |
| 17 |
rebuild their apps, portage will take care of rebuilding the -sharp |
| 18 |
libs. |
Archives