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: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 01:21:14
Message-Id: 4FD15347.4040804@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue by Ralph Sennhauser
On 06/07/2012 11:04 AM, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:43:32 -0700 > Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: > >> On 06/07/2012 01:24 AM, Brian Harring wrote: >>> I'm perfectly fine w/ ABI_SLOT and SLOT (I proposed a similar thing >>> in '06/'07); I'd however suggest ensuring there is some buy in from >>> devs on that one since that was the main argument against it in the >>> past. >> >> I can imagine that ABI_SLOT operator deps will be a lot more popular >> than SLOT operator deps, since ABI_SLOT operator deps will accommodate >> the common practice of allowing ABI changes within a particular SLOT. > > What for? So we won't ever get rid of revdep-rebuild resp. > @preserved-libs? Except for the ranged dep problem I don't see any > additional benefit but potential drawbacks. Please correct me where I'm > wrong.
ABI_SLOT operator deps *do* allow us to get rid of revdep-rebuild, since they are usable in cases like the dbus-glib/glib:2 dependency, where SLOT operator deps are unmanageable. -- Thanks, Zac