1 |
El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 18:40 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió: |
2 |
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:43:32 -0700 |
3 |
> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> > I can imagine that ABI_SLOT operator deps will be a lot more popular |
5 |
> > than SLOT operator deps, since ABI_SLOT operator deps will accommodate |
6 |
> > the common practice of allowing ABI changes within a particular SLOT. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> You're missing out on a brilliant opportunity to encourage developers |
9 |
> put in a bit more work to save users a huge amount of pain here. |
10 |
> |
11 |
|
12 |
Won't be possible to encourage developers to make that "bit" more work |
13 |
when that work is not so "bit". Of course, I understand there are |
14 |
probably some valid cases when situation can (and should) be improved, |
15 |
but I still fail to see the advantage of allowing parallel installation |
16 |
for glib, xorg-server... taking care their reverse dependencies simply |
17 |
need a rebuild to work with latest ABIs and, then, users should anyway |
18 |
need to remove that old slots once reverse deps are rebuilt against |
19 |
latest slot as we wouldn't support setups where people is lazy to |
20 |
rebuild and have, for example, x11 drivers built against |
21 |
xorg-server-1.9.5-r1 even having 1.11.2-r2 installed in parallel. |