Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] gnupg-2 stable plans

["Alon Bar-Lev" <alonbl@gentoo.org>]

On 12/12/07, Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 22:49 Tue 11 Dec     , Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> > On Dec 9, 2007 9:21 AM, Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > On 15:49 Sat 08 Dec     , Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> > > Seems reasonable. Any particular reason to slot gnupg-2 as SLOT 0 rather
> > > than SLOT 1.9?
> >
> > he end result would be one slot... If I need to chose 1.9 or 0, I prefer the
> > standard is to have slot 0.
>
> What happens to people who only have slot 1.9 installed and not slot 0,
> or vice versa? You might want to test a few different upgrade scenarios
> to see what portage does.

OK, I will try this.

> > > > 2. Perform slot-move of slot "0" and slot "1.9" into slot "2", so
> > > > migration will be smooth. The problem is that I need all archs to work
> > > > with me in timely manner so that this will be possible. I have
> > > > bug#194113 waiting for arm, mips, s390, sh, and this only for the
> > > > dependencies.
> > >
> > > I can imagine this resulting in very weird issues, when you have two of
> > > the same package installed in the same slot.
> >
> > What?
> > These are two versions....
>
> Right, but two versions are never supposed to be installed into the same
> slot. They are during upgrade/downgrade, but that's short-term. Some
> package managers could respond oddly. If you were going to go this
> route, it would again be worth testing in advance.

I don't understand... It works quite some time for many people.

Alon.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list