Dnia 2015-04-04, o godz. 21:36:37 Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
> >>>>> On Sat, 4 Apr 2015, Michał Górny wrote: > > >> This is not true for slotmoves. The previous slot can be reused by > >> versions not matching the dependency spec of the move. One can even > >> move some versions to a new slot, while leaving others in the old > >> one. > >> > >> For example, you could have app-misc/foo-1:0 and app-misc/foo-2:0 > >> and then do the following slotmove: > >> > >> slotmove =app-misc/foo-2* 0 2 > >> > >> How would your transparent conversion treat >=app-misc/foo-1:0 in a > >> dependency? > > > As far as I'm concerned, this is a hack and as such it doesn't have to > > cover all the possible cases. > > But in the worst case, your "hack" can cause a broken dependency > graph. On the one hand, above mentioned >=app-misc/foo-1:0 matches > all versions affected by the slotmove, so it should be converted. > On the other hand, it is a perfectly valid dependency specification > which could have been added after the slotmove, in which case it > shouldn't be converted. You cannot know here what the intentions of > the developer are. But it *will* be converted in vdb the next time updates are applied. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
pgp2mU1TyXFQY.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
