| 1 |
On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 16:03 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 05:11:15 +0300 |
| 3 |
> Mart Raudsepp <leio@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > * SLOT-OPERATOR-DEPS |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > An outstanding problem to me as a package maintainer is the lack of |
| 7 |
> > means to know which slot the PM actually picked for the package, as |
| 8 |
> > some of my co-maintained packages have no use of := if it can't know |
| 9 |
> > which version was picked to act accordingly in src_configure. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> The best installed version that matches the spec is always picked |
| 12 |
> for :=. We originally considered making this more complicated, or |
| 13 |
> possibly making ways of saying "all installed slots", but neither |
| 14 |
> appears to have a legitimate use case. The latter in particular would |
| 15 |
> only encourage abuse (people might mistakenly think it's a solution to |
| 16 |
> the Python / Ruby ABIs thing). |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I don't think that really works in all cases, e.g in combination with |
| 19 |
PDEPEND or such. But if there is such a guarantee per spec, it's at |
| 20 |
least covering the common and most reasonable cases. |
| 21 |
So to make this easy for everybody in the future, do you perhaps have a |
| 22 |
concrete ebuild code example that shows how exactly to do it in an |
| 23 |
ebuild pkg_setup or src_configure exactly? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
My main open issue with SLOT-OPERATOR-DEPS is about the :* syntax, and |
| 27 |
specifically how that potentially works un-intuituvely with some future |
| 28 |
syntax regarding list of slots. The feature concept itself seems sound |
| 29 |
and reasonable, but I think we might be able to do better with the |
| 30 |
syntax for the long run when slot lists come into play. |
| 31 |
I need to lay down for a while now (caught a cold), but I'll work on a |
| 32 |
detailed description of what I have in mind - after thinking it more |
| 33 |
through to myself - in some 5-7 hours from now. It is also possible that |
| 34 |
this thinking will result in the conclusion that the proposed syntax is |
| 35 |
best afterall, but I'll see what I come up with. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Still have REPLACED_BY_VERSIONS stuff to think through too, but I don't |
| 38 |
expect any big controversies from there from me, I hope. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
Mart Raudsepp |
| 44 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 45 |
Mail: leio@g.o |
| 46 |
Weblog: http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/leio |
Archives