Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 10:48:14
Message-Id: 1339238817.2624.15.camel@belkin4
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue by Zac Medico
El vie, 08-06-2012 a las 12:31 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
> On 06/08/2012 12:23 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > El vie, 08-06-2012 a las 12:16 -0700, Zac Medico escribió: > >> On 06/08/2012 01:38 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > >>> El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 12:33 -0700, Zac Medico escribió: > >>>> On 06/07/2012 12:24 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > >>>>> El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 12:09 -0700, Zac Medico escribió: > >>>>>> On 06/07/2012 12:00 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > >>>>>>> El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 19:44 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió: > >>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 20:43:54 +0200 > >>>>>>>> Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> I would prefer, as a workaround, allow reverse deps to RDEPEND on > >>>>>>>>>> glib:2.* instead. That way it would cover more cases when more than > >>>>>>>>>> two slots are available > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Well, per: > >>>>>>>>> http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/pms.git;a=commitdiff;h=f9f7729c047300e1924ad768a49c660e12c2f906;hp=b7750e67b4772c1064543defb7df6a556f09807b > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> looks like "*" usage for SLOTs would be allowed :), or I am > >>>>>>>>> misinterpreting it? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> It's not a wildcard. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> But it looks like a valid usage for cases like glib vs. > >>>>>>> dbus-glib/gobject-introspection I have exposed as example, and also > >>>>>>> allows us to keep "SLOT" over "ABI_SLOT" (at least for this case, not > >>>>>>> sure about others I could be missing now...) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The :* operator doesn't trigger any rebuilds though. Quoting the PMS > >>>>>> patch that you linked: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> * Indicates that any slot value is acceptable. In addition, for runtime > >>>>>> dependencies, indicates that the package will not break if the matched > >>>>>> package is uninstalled and replaced by a different matching package in a > >>>>>> different slot. > >>>>> > >>>>> I mean, use it in conjunction with ":=", one for rebuild and other to > >>>>> indicate any 2.x SLOT fits the "normal" RDEPEND (to not need to > >>>>> periodically update RDEPENDs or need to go back from :SLOT depends to > >>>>> old =category/package-version-* ways) > >>>>> > >>>>> Allowing that, we wouldn't need ABI_SLOT (at least to prevent this issue > >>>>> that arises with using only SLOTs for this) > >>>> > >>>> What you're talking about here is more similar to ABI_SLOT operator deps > >>>> than what was originally intended for SLOT operator deps. In other > >>>> words, anyone who is opposed to ABI_SLOT operator deps is likely to also > >>>> be opposed to your proposal. > >>> > >>> Oh :(, and what is the reason to want to prevent this behavior? Looks > >>> much simpler to me than needing to use ranges for dependencies or > >>> needing to create "compat" packages to hide the problem :| > >> > >> It's close enough to ABI_SLOT that it would make more sense just to use > >> ABI_SLOT because it's more flexible. > > > > In that case, I think it's clear we need ABI_SLOT ;) The problem is how > > to document it in a way people agree with including it for eapi5 :| > > We can just write a specification for this one feature, and ask the > Council to approve it.
That would be nice, if you remember, I started with "elog/ecommand splitting solution" to try to get this long standing issue solved "soon" and, since looks like each eapi takes more than a year to complete, I would really prefer to see it included in eapi5, specially after seeing that this "ABI_SLOT" idea was suggested years ago but the issue stalled later multiple times

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies