1 |
On 30/10/2012 22:44, Tiziano Müller wrote: |
2 |
> I agree. It really doesn't make sense to keep unbuildable stuff in the |
3 |
> tree. The point of slotting it in the first place was also to force a |
4 |
> rebuild of reverse dependencies to have them use newer boost (since at |
5 |
> that time when boost slotting was introduced we had some API breakages |
6 |
> occurring between versions). |
7 |
> Now with the sub-slots we can simply use this feature to tell the PM to |
8 |
> rebuild the stuff. |
9 |
|
10 |
Well, as long as the soname is correct (which it is), with |
11 |
preserved-rebuild (which is now available on ~arch Portage as well), |
12 |
this is basically already possible to some extent without even using |
13 |
subslots. |
14 |
|
15 |
Each new minor version bump (1.49 -> 1.50) will orphan the 1.49 |
16 |
libraries, @preserved-rebuild will rebuild the linked packages. |
17 |
|
18 |
Of course for those that don't link to the objects, but only use the |
19 |
headers, the sub-slots make it possible as well. |
20 |
|
21 |
-- |
22 |
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes |
23 |
flameeyes@×××××××××.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ |