Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 19:34:03
Message-Id: 4FD101EC.7080306@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue by Pacho Ramos
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. -- Thanks, Zac

Replies