Summary: | Portage doesn't handle new slotting properly | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Portage Development | Reporter: | Phil Bordelon (sunflare) <phil> |
Component: | Unclassified | Assignee: | Gentoo Linux bug wranglers <bug-wranglers> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | major | CC: | phil, seemant |
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | x86 | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- |
Description
Phil Bordelon (sunflare)
2002-05-27 22:35:29 UTC
Daniel, I was under the impression that if no SLOT is specified, portage assumes SLOT="0" ? Seemant: No, that is not the case. With no slot, Portage assumes SLOT="" (unslotted). Then the ebuilds that have had 'SLOT="0"' added to them need to have that removed, or some other solution needs to be done. Else we're going to have duplicate versions of all of these programs in our ebuild databases. Apps should have SLOT="0" Closing this out. We've had enough discussions on this one, both on IRC and on the mailing lists, to know that the current SLOT-based behaviour is what we want. |