On 10:34 Mon 10 Dec     , Santiago M. Mola wrote:
> On Dec 10, 2007 10:21 AM, Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 00:26 Mon 10 Dec     , Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > > What I've got for my Xorg testing setup, is foo-9999-rX, with a number
> > > of different -X values that I just select from via package.{un,}mask
> > > while testing - this saves altering everything else in the tree to pick
> > > some package that has a different name just to satisfy a branch (which
> > > also requires lots of ${MY_PN} mockery for some packages.
> > > You'd also need to put '!cat/pn-feat' in the base cat/pn package and
> > > vice-versa.
> >
> > While we're getting a bit off the original topic here, it occurred to me
> > that using SLOTs for this, in combination with various SLOT deps and
> > SLOT blockers, might work. Then one could use a search tool that would
> > display SLOTs to show you which branch you're getting.
> >
> Too tricky. It would confuse package managers and would break the
> meaning of SLOT. An use expanded SCM_BRANCH combined with use
> dependencies makes more sense and, hopefully, would be something
> manageable.

You've made these assertions about confusion and breakage, and I would 
like to understand the reasoning behind them. I don't understand how it 
would be different than any other SLOT, because they're already a 
string. USE_EXPAND doesn't allow for the possibility of multiple SLOTs 
installed at once, which is a feature I would like.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Reply via email to