From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F457138942 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2013 16:36:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F345B21C0C4; Sat, 9 Feb 2013 16:36:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5B8621C013 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2013 16:36:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5B5533E3BE for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2013 16:36:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.479 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.479 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.476, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OWwh5ChwtGbb for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2013 16:36:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0673A33E360 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2013 16:36:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1U4DPq-0002FX-Ne for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Sat, 09 Feb 2013 17:36:38 +0100 Received: from ppp118-209-230-206.lns20.mel6.internode.on.net ([118.209.230.206]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 09 Feb 2013 17:36:38 +0100 Received: from kensington by ppp118-209-230-206.lns20.mel6.internode.on.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 09 Feb 2013 17:36:38 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Michael Palimaka Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: On the good usage of subslots Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 03:36:10 +1100 Message-ID: References: <20130209091503.1f75352d@gentoo.org> <5116537C.3050201@gentoo.org> <511673FF.8080303@gentoo.org> 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: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp118-209-230-206.lns20.mel6.internode.on.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2 In-Reply-To: <511673FF.8080303@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 465dd066-046f-484d-9961-d910bf5a6ec7 X-Archives-Hash: 9a5006a12405c72e16fb8a3e08a2ab90 On 10/02/2013 03:06, Zac Medico wrote: > On 02/09/2013 06:05 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote: >> Is there a difference in behaviour between 'media-libs/libpng:=' and >> 'media-libs/libpng' with no slot information at all? > > I don't know if you phrased your question as intended. Anyway, yes, the > difference is that one with the slot-operator will trigger rebuilds when > the SLOT or sub-slot changes. > You are right, I was not very clear, sorry about that. Samuli talked about not forgetting to add the primary slot when adding a subslot dependency. Does the behaviour there differ compared to omitting the slot when there is no subslot dependency? Eg. He wrote we should use 'media-libs/libpng:0=', but pre-subslots, the :0 was often (incorrectly?) omitted.