From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1SiSbV-0004Ye-Ir for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 15:50:29 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3B587E0CD6; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 15:50:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9F9FE0CC9 for ; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 15:49:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pomiocik.lan (77-255-3-88.adsl.inetia.pl [77.255.3.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CC3291B403D; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 15:49:33 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:51:01 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots Message-ID: <20120623175101.3061e6a4@pomiocik.lan> In-Reply-To: <20120623151001.705417fb@googlemail.com> References: <20120623142143.631d7ebf@googlemail.com> <20120623151001.705417fb@googlemail.com> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.0 (GTK+ 2.24.10; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA256; boundary="Sig_/jbt7aOo0H+eiWg2Tek=_PHg"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 6c0a0124-f4a1-40a9-8f7e-7423a1a93660 X-Archives-Hash: 3bcd0042799b66b250b22947fe8e470b --Sig_/jbt7aOo0H+eiWg2Tek=_PHg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 15:10:01 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:06:58 -0400 > Mike Gilbert 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? > >=20 > > 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? >=20 > 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.=20 --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --Sig_/jbt7aOo0H+eiWg2Tek=_PHg Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iJwEAQEIAAYFAk/l5egACgkQfXuS5UK5QB3NwQP9F4llVaEp1f43ZqkQe0OlRlm/ JzGevc0cz2t+ffALZlzF+GcZ/ItWUG5i1uCKwQO4Oet1bAn83+Ai4WlMO1ePNtVj wRXJlcdEBeeds6A8isN1xUySnwFgS2d1AaAmxvvF0COBD4vrKSVto71Yi1Jm3R3g aPS5I5Kw4ZWJvosPQa0= =BEYk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/jbt7aOo0H+eiWg2Tek=_PHg--