Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] portage inconsistency?
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 09:23:21
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] portage inconsistency? by "Abraham Marín Pérez"
1 On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:45:25 +0200, Abraham Marín Pérez wrote:
3 > Now think there's a new version available of LIB, let's say version
4 > 2.1, but the latest version of APP is still 1.0. If portage performed a
5 > deep update by default LIB would be rebuilt, but no APP, what would
6 > cause broken dependencies on APP (remember LIB is a dynamic library).
7 > However, is you don't update LIB unless you update also APP you will
8 > prevent this problem*.
10 SLOTs deal with this problem, allowing you to have LIB-1.0 and LIB-2.0
11 installed simultaneously.
13 > * Needless to say, the problem will still arise if two applications
14 > depend on the same dynamic library, which is a common case, and only
15 > one of them is updated, but still it's an improvement.
17 Unless you use SLOTs.
20 --
21 Neil Bothwick
23 A. Top posters.
24 Q. What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-user] portage inconsistency? "Abraham Marín Pérez" <tecnic5@××××××××.com>