| 1 |
On Tue, 5 Nov 2013 08:29:59 -0600, Bruce Hill wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> I can't understand the *need* for the new slot/subslot philosophy. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
The need to it is clear. Previous methods worked by breaking things and |
| 6 |
then fixing them, hopefully before the breakage became a problem, |
| 7 |
whenever library APIs changed. Subslots are an attempt to deal with this |
| 8 |
proactively by fixing the problems as they occur. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Whether subslots are the best way to do it, and whether the |
| 11 |
implementation is ideal, as separate questions, but there is no doubt |
| 12 |
that any system that relies on the existence of revdep-rebuild is |
| 13 |
seriously flawed. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
To my mind, the question is not "are subslots needed" but "are they the |
| 16 |
best solution to this problem". |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Most software is about as user-friendly as a cornered rat! |
Archives