Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] About what would be included in EAPI5
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 15:25:12
Message-Id: 20120616152422.3972.qmail@stuge.se
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] About what would be included in EAPI5 by Ciaran McCreesh
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Could it work to make automatic signatures of imported ABI, and > > simply compare signatures when a provider package is updated? > > No.
Can you say why?
> Also, can we stop using the term "ABI" in reference to this please? > It's misleading. Let's call them sub-slots instead.
I think ABI fits well though? The situation is that A DEPENDs on B, and at some point B changes in a way that A must be rebuilt in order to run - right? The only reason that A wouldn't run anymore is that B's ABI changed? Slots and sub-slots seem to be PMS terms to model this situation? They could certainly be used to implement a solution, but perhaps it's wise not to insist on using them when merely exploring the problem? //Peter

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] About what would be included in EAPI5 Hans de Graaff <graaff@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] About what would be included in EAPI5 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>