1 |
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Todd Goodman <tsg@×××××××××.net> wrote: |
2 |
> * David W Noon <dwnoon@××××××××.com> [120328 11:22]: |
3 |
>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:58:00 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote about Re: |
4 |
>> [gentoo-user] Anyone Else "Ping-Ponging" with fltk?: |
5 |
>> |
6 |
>> > On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 10:15:19 -0400, Todd Goodman wrote: |
7 |
>> [snip] |
8 |
>> > > Or have I broken my system? |
9 |
>> > |
10 |
>> > Probably. There is rarely a good reason for having libraries in world. |
11 |
>> |
12 |
>> For us programmers it is often essential that we have one or more |
13 |
>> library packages in world, since we might be using that library (or |
14 |
>> those libraries) in projects we are developing. |
15 |
>> |
16 |
>> The question I think Todd Goodman is trying to ask is why a package in |
17 |
>> world should be a candidate for depclean. |
18 |
>> -- |
19 |
>> Regards, |
20 |
>> |
21 |
>> Dave [RLU #314465] |
22 |
> |
23 |
> Yes, exactly. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> And more specifically, if the two versions of fltk are slotted it makes |
26 |
> me even more surprised that portage wants to depclean the 1.3.0 version. |
27 |
|
28 |
If nothing is indicating a specific dependency on that version, it |
29 |
makes sense for portage to only maintain one copy of the library on |
30 |
the system at one time. |
31 |
|
32 |
If you specifically want that version kept, you can add the version |
33 |
number you want kept to your world file, I think. Not sure. |
34 |
|
35 |
-- |
36 |
:wq |