1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
3 |
|
4 |
On 10/06/12 08:45 AM, Davide Pesavento wrote: |
5 |
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Ciaran McCreesh |
6 |
> <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
7 |
>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 13:55:53 -0700 Zac Medico |
8 |
>> <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
9 |
>>> A dependency atom will have optional SLOT and ABI_SLOT parts. |
10 |
>>> Using the dbus-glib depedency on glib:2 as an example [1], the |
11 |
>>> dbus-glib dependency will be expressed with an atom such as |
12 |
>>> dev-libs/glib:2:= and the package manager will translate that |
13 |
>>> atom to dev-libs/glib:2:=2.32 at build time. So, ':' is always |
14 |
>>> used to distinguish SLOT deps, and ':=' is always used to |
15 |
>>> distinguish ABI_SLOT deps. Is that syntax good? |
16 |
>> |
17 |
>> Here's a nicer syntax: no ABI_SLOT variable, and SLOT="2/2.32". |
18 |
>> Then you can do explicit :2/2.32 dependencies if you like, or :2 |
19 |
>> (which would match SLOT="2" or SLOT="2/anything"), or :2= (which |
20 |
>> gets rewritten to :2/2.32=) or :2*. If an ebuild does SLOT="2", |
21 |
>> it's treated as 2/2. |
22 |
>> |
23 |
> |
24 |
> I was going to propose a very similar syntax, i.e. using a slash |
25 |
> to separate the regular SLOT part from the new ABI part, so +1 for |
26 |
> Ciaran's proposal. |
27 |
> |
28 |
> Thanks, Pesa |
29 |
> |
30 |
|
31 |
This looks very promising -- then for libs where we only want to |
32 |
support one API, we could still use SLOT=0 via (ie for libpng) |
33 |
SLOT="0/1.5" |
34 |
|
35 |
+1 |
36 |
|
37 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
38 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) |
39 |
|
40 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAk/Um/YACgkQ2ugaI38ACPDuDwD9F0mLVsh1rwUufL2HCB0Jjl2b |
41 |
KkNa5z9I4s6lDQmPdIoBAKlPBrtN4C87qFjeJRBkytJvRn8ZF82kSQ0R7ik3UPqc |
42 |
=EYRI |
43 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |