On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:12:04 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:20:23 +0300 > Mart Raudsepp <l...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > 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. > > > > Don't do that if the slotted package in question is not in the > > @world, and all packages depending on it strictly require the older > > SLOT. > > That is an option Paludis provides for users, but doing so leads to > old versions of things lying around when an upgrade is preferred. When exactly ? You took the gcc example, but it does not have a slot specified in the 'packages' file so should be upgraded regardless of slot. > It's also incorrect behaviour when multiple slots are capable of > satisfying a dependency. I suppose that is what Mart meant with 'strictly require'. I do not know about ruby stuff, but the gtk2/gtk3 case seems a non-issue to me. - No slot specified -> best version available, slot independent. - Slot specified -> best version in said slot. - Upgrade to new version in a different slot iff something brings in the new slot. If your heuristic brings in gtk3 when everything depends on gtk2, you should probably rethink your heuristic. A.
