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: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 13:08:16
Message-Id: 4FD49BF6.2010207@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue by Davide Pesavento
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 10/06/12 08:45 AM, Davide Pesavento wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Ciaran McCreesh > <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> 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. >> > > I was going to propose a very similar syntax, i.e. using a slash > to separate the regular SLOT part from the new ABI part, so +1 for > Ciaran's proposal. > > Thanks, Pesa >
This looks very promising -- then for libs where we only want to support one API, we could still use SLOT=0 via (ie for libpng) SLOT="0/1.5" +1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAk/Um/YACgkQ2ugaI38ACPDuDwD9F0mLVsh1rwUufL2HCB0Jjl2b KkNa5z9I4s6lDQmPdIoBAKlPBrtN4C87qFjeJRBkytJvRn8ZF82kSQ0R7ik3UPqc =EYRI -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----