* Re: [gentoo-user] portage inconsistency?
@ 2007-08-06 9:17 99% ` Neil Bothwick
0 siblings, 0 replies; 1+ results
From: Neil Bothwick @ 2007-08-06 9:17 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 874 bytes --]
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:45:25 +0200, Abraham Marín Pérez wrote:
> Now think there's a new version available of LIB, let's say version
> 2.1, but the latest version of APP is still 1.0. If portage performed a
> deep update by default LIB would be rebuilt, but no APP, what would
> cause broken dependencies on APP (remember LIB is a dynamic library).
> However, is you don't update LIB unless you update also APP you will
> prevent this problem*.
SLOTs deal with this problem, allowing you to have LIB-1.0 and LIB-2.0
installed simultaneously.
> * Needless to say, the problem will still arise if two applications
> depend on the same dynamic library, which is a common case, and only
> one of them is updated, but still it's an improvement.
Unless you use SLOTs.
--
Neil Bothwick
A. Top posters.
Q. What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 99%]
Results 1-1 of 1 | reverse | options above
-- pct% links below jump to the message on this page, permalinks otherwise --
2007-07-16 22:46 [gentoo-user] portage inconsistency? maxim wexler
2007-08-05 14:32 ` Bo Ørsted Andresen
2007-08-06 8:45 ` Abraham Marín Pérez
2007-08-06 9:17 99% ` Neil Bothwick
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox