On 19/09/15 12:36, hasufell wrote: > Hmm, you are suggesting to do this even for packages that only > have one SLOT anyway? I'm really not sure about this. Depending on > the SLOT-naming-scheme that will be introduced it may require > massive changes as well. It's hard to look into the future. I > personally think it is enough to do that for multislot packages. >
I think, pro-actively considering the case of new slots makes sense because of the reasons stated. But I would suggest that we should go for "No SLOT set, the PM assumes :0". That way, the SLOT is fixed and no upgrade to the new version would happen, but we have lesser amount of SLOTs to set. Justin
