Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 13:04:01
Message-Id: 4FE86187.6050503@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue by Zac Medico
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 23/06/12 08:42 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 06/10/2012 11:18 AM, Zac Medico wrote: >> On 06/10/2012 05:25 AM, Ciaran McCreesh 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. >> >> Yes, I prefer your syntax. > > In portage-2.1.11.1 and 2.2.0_alpha112 I’ve added support for EAPI > “4-slot-abi”: > > > http://blogs.gentoo.org/zmedico/2012/06/23/automatic-rebuilds-with-experimental-eapi-4-slot-abi/
Does
>
anyone have a fork of the tree that's being converted to test this new functionality? If so I'd like to sign up. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAk/oYYcACgkQ2ugaI38ACPBZ3QEAkXXOmiTdC/7Hgl84c2oSlwbM 5YNUbcgh6wI59FTCAboA/RGdo1YptVCvmHYlyvJ2VKNY98pq2g+FKhY1T7SAbrlo =hXfd -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>