Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Davide Pesavento <pesa@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 12:46:59
Message-Id: CADfzvvY41_8p4_873M9Qq6MtX3H+3+E2qjdN5v2073CNWGDnCQ@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue by Ciaran McCreesh
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
<ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 13:55:53 -0700 > Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: >> A dependency atom will have optional SLOT and ABI_SLOT parts. Using >> the dbus-glib depedency on glib:2 as an example [1], the dbus-glib >> dependency will be expressed with an atom such as dev-libs/glib:2:= >> and the package manager will translate that atom to >> dev-libs/glib:2:=2.32 at build time. So, ':' is always used to >> distinguish SLOT deps, and ':=' is always used to distinguish >> ABI_SLOT deps. Is that syntax good? > > Here's a nicer syntax: no ABI_SLOT variable, and SLOT="2/2.32". Then you > can do explicit :2/2.32 dependencies if you like, or :2 (which would > match SLOT="2" or SLOT="2/anything"), or :2= (which gets rewritten > to :2/2.32=) or :2*. If an ebuild does SLOT="2", it's treated as 2/2. >
I was going to propose a very similar syntax, i.e. using a slash to separate the regular SLOT part from the new ABI part, so +1 for Ciaran's proposal. Thanks, Pesa

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o>