From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14447 invoked from network); 25 Aug 2004 20:20:09 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 25 Aug 2004 20:20:09 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C04Fd-000712-Im for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 25 Aug 2004 20:20:09 +0000 Received: (qmail 14867 invoked by uid 89); 25 Aug 2004 20:20:08 +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 1045 invoked from network); 25 Aug 2004 20:20:07 +0000 Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:13:12 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Ciaran McCreesh Cc: gentoo-dev Message-ID: <20040825201312.GD9706@kroah.com> Reply-To: gentoo-dev References: <412CD487.5040705@gentoo.org> <20040825182258.GC30125@kroah.com> <20040825194020.GA9706@kroah.com> <20040825210013.513f0664@snowdrop.home> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040825210013.513f0664@snowdrop.home> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] devleopment sources are no longer 'development' - example X-Archives-Salt: eda71195-caa9-4ba7-86e9-c0e260b9bab3 X-Archives-Hash: 12dcc6d961d354790d0807aef58d5285 On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 09:00:13PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:40:20 -0700 Greg KH wrote: > | > gentoo-sources24 > | > gentoo-sources26 > | > | I don't have a problem with this, but the dependancy stuff might not > | work out properly for some odd kernel-based userspace packages. > | > | Anyone object to this? > > Well, it's pretty nasty... Part of the idea of SLOTs is that we never > need to include version numbers in packages... In fact our docs [1] even > say: > > > Most distributions and ports systems tend to have a "freetype" package > > for freetype 1.x and "freetype2" for 2.x. We consider this approach a > > sign of a fundamentally broken package management system. > > Do we really want to admit that our package manager is broken? But then what is preventing us from having both a 2.4 and 2.6 version of gentoo-sources? Is it the following statement in that same file: Currently, slots cannot be used to install multiple instances of the same version of a package. When it will be possible, one could even install the same version of gcc multiple times (for instance to build cross-compilers for different architectures). Or is it something else that I'm just not aware of? thanks, greg k-h -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list