Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: "Abraham Marín Pérez" <tecnic5@××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] portage inconsistency?
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:25:59
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] portage inconsistency? by Neil Bothwick
1 Neil Bothwick escribió:
2 > On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:45:25 +0200, Abraham Marín Pérez wrote:
3 >
4 >
5 >> Now think there's a new version available of LIB, let's say version
6 >> 2.1, but the latest version of APP is still 1.0. If portage performed a
7 >> deep update by default LIB would be rebuilt, but no APP, what would
8 >> cause broken dependencies on APP (remember LIB is a dynamic library).
9 >> However, is you don't update LIB unless you update also APP you will
10 >> prevent this problem*.
11 >>
12 >
13 > SLOTs deal with this problem, allowing you to have LIB-1.0 and LIB-2.0
14 > installed simultaneously.
15 >
17 I'm afraid you misunderstood what I said. As you said, slots let
18 different versions of the same package being installed in your system,
19 however, that's only done when you REALLY need to do so; one of the
20 cases in which you would have such a necessity is the one of a library
21 which changes its API through versions in a way that breaks backwards
22 compatibility. In this case you may have apps using the old API and apps
23 using the new one, and hence you would need both versions installed.
25 However, if you can go with only one version slots aren't used, can you
26 imagine the great amount of garbage installed in your box if you had to
27 use a new slot for every new version of a package? That's just crazy.
29 In conclusion, if you update a library and uninstall its previous
30 version (which you'd do very often, even if you haven't noticed it
31 before) you may need to rebuild the apps using that library as well,
32 there's no way you escape from that.
34 Abraham
36 --
37 gentoo-user@g.o mailing list