On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:22:37 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:23:13 +0200 > Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:06:38 +0100 > > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:09:03 +0200 > > > Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > That's just it, though -- this no longer holds. -r300 is now > > > > > being used for something that is exactly the same version as > > > > > -r200. > > > > > > > > Did you look at SONAME? > > > > > > Look at SONAME before deciding what package to install? Kindly > > > explain how that works. > > > > I'm just saying that these are two different versions of the > > package. If you want GTK+3, you take the newer one. If you want > > GTK+2 compat, you take the older slot. What's wrong with that? > > The package mangler does not know that 1.1-r300 is not a "better" > version than 1.1-r200, or that 1.2-r200 is not a "better" version than > 1.1-r300. Indicating packages where this kind of strangeness happens > allows manglers to know that things that are usually true about the > relationship between slots and versions no longer hold, and that in > these specific cases it should consider slots to be heavily > independent. It *is* a 'better' version, much like gtk+-3.* is 'better' than gtk+-2.*. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
