On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 15:10:01 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:06:58 -0400 > Mike Gilbert <flop...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > I don't quite understand why this would be necessary. > > > > > > Would "funky-slots" just be used in situations where ebuilds with > > > the same PV but different PVR have different slots? > > > > > > Taking the gtk2/gtk3 example, I think the -r200/-r300 thing is > > > only used in libraries; applications use slot deps to select > > > which one they need. Paludis should not remove the -r200 version > > > if it is still referenced in the depgraph, correct? > > > > Or maybe you are saying that Paludis will not automatically install > > a new slot for a package that is already installed, even when > > referenced by a slot dep? > > The 'standard' behaviour (which can be changed by the user) for > Paludis when doing "complete" resolutions is that whenever there's a > slot of something installed, it will try to bring in the newest > version of that package, even if it's in a different slot. This is > generally a good thing, since newer versions are supposed to be > better than older versions. The problem is that now "newer" versions > are being used to mean "with a different Ruby implementation" or > "built in a different way", which screws up the meaning. I think you should start by describing the problem so we all could understand it, and then we can start thinking about a solution. Is it that Paludis installs a newer SLOT even if a reverse dependency explicitly requests another SLOT? Sounds like a bug to me. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
