From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27513 invoked by uid 1002); 21 Nov 2003 14:54:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 27414 invoked from network); 21 Nov 2003 14:54:37 -0000 From: Mike Frysinger Organization: wh0rd.org To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:54:39 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 References: <20031121134441.GA31194@mail.ignum.cz> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200311210954.40108.vapier@gentoo.org> X-PMX-Version: 4.1.0.80455 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Slotting Tcl/Tk X-Archives-Salt: 8ab74776-fd6e-4888-a3e3-056a3724dbae X-Archives-Hash: 8387aed0b97e098c8325df7ea9c0c7fa On Friday 21 November 2003 09:40, Eamon Caddigan wrote: > I agree that there are a lot of potential issues involved with SLOTting > this package. Unfortunately, the only alternatives -- a similarly > massive effort to make sure everything works with the newest version, or > sticking with an increasingly out-of-date package -- seem worse. well, do any bugs exist in bugzilla about 8.4.4 ? you could always bootstrap a stable system (after marking 8.4.4 stable locally) and see if everything works out. ive been using 8.4.4 on my systems w/out problems ... i'd agree with utx here on why trying to SLOT a package just because you want to compensate for a newer one being broken is the wrong path to take. it's like when people suggested SLOTing openssl just because you have to recompile packages against the newer openssl ... it's a hack, not a solution. -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list