On 12/12/07, Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 22:49 Tue 11 Dec , Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > > On Dec 9, 2007 9:21 AM, Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 15:49 Sat 08 Dec , Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > > > Seems reasonable. Any particular reason to slot gnupg-2 as SLOT 0 rather > > > than SLOT 1.9? > > > > he end result would be one slot... If I need to chose 1.9 or 0, I prefer the > > standard is to have slot 0. > > What happens to people who only have slot 1.9 installed and not slot 0, > or vice versa? You might want to test a few different upgrade scenarios > to see what portage does.
OK, I will try this. > > > > 2. Perform slot-move of slot "0" and slot "1.9" into slot "2", so > > > > migration will be smooth. The problem is that I need all archs to work > > > > with me in timely manner so that this will be possible. I have > > > > bug#194113 waiting for arm, mips, s390, sh, and this only for the > > > > dependencies. > > > > > > I can imagine this resulting in very weird issues, when you have two of > > > the same package installed in the same slot. > > > > What? > > These are two versions.... > > Right, but two versions are never supposed to be installed into the same > slot. They are during upgrade/downgrade, but that's short-term. Some > package managers could respond oddly. If you were going to go this > route, it would again be worth testing in advance. I don't understand... It works quite some time for many people. Alon. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
