Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] About what would be included in EAPI5
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 16:43:01
Message-Id: 1339864911.7815.61.camel@belkin4
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] About what would be included in EAPI5 by Ciaran McCreesh
1 El sáb, 16-06-2012 a las 17:24 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
2 > On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 17:16:34 +0200
3 > Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote:
4 > > El sáb, 16-06-2012 a las 15:52 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
5 > > > On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 16:48:20 +0200
6 > > > Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote:
7 > > > > Regarding the comparison with using only SLOT, the most clear
8 > > > > example of how that solution was a bit worse was that glib vs
9 > > > > dbus-glib/gobject-introspection handling:
10 > > > > - Using only SLOT with := would end up with we needing to update
11 > > > > ebuilds for packages depending on glib on each SLOT bump, that is
12 > > > > completely inviable.
13 > > >
14 > > > What about if ranged dependencies existed?
15 > >
16 > > I think this was already discussed in the same thread, but maybe we
17 > > are thinking in different things, could you please explain me a bit
18 > > more what do you mean by "ranged dependencies"? (if it would include
19 > > an example, even better :))
20 >
21 > Being able to say something like >=2&<3.
22 >
23 > > I can try to check it if no maintainer shows more packages
24 > > showing this stable API unstable ABIs issues
25 >
26 > Please do. This is a fairly important point: if the number of affected
27 > packages is small, there's no point in introducing sub-slots.
28 >
29
30 Simply grepping for qfile usages, I see similar problems for gtk
31 +/gdk-pixbuf and any package providing /usr/lib/gtk-2.0/2.* files.
32
33 Also similar problem with PyQt4 packages, and sip ones. And this is not
34 counting packages that tell people to manually run "emerge 'some
35 package'" directly
36
37 > > > You're misunderstanding the point of the * there. The * has nothing
38 > > > to do with wildcarding.
39 > >
40 > > Probably, what is "*" sense in this context? I was thinking more on a
41 > > bash context when I would use "*" to fit any 2.x case
42 >
43 > It means "and the slot can be switched at runtime, without causing
44 > breakage". Thus it's only meaningful on dependencies that are both
45 > build- and run-.
46 >
47 > The :*/:= feature was designed to solve one specific problem: if a user
48 > has foo installed, and foo deps upon bar, and bar:1 is installed, and
49 > the user wants to install bar:2 and then uninstall bar:1, will foo
50 > break? :* means no, := means yes.
51 >
52
53 And, wouldn't it be covered simply making that package not depend on any
54 slot specifically?
55
56 > > Also, maybe you could talk with other exherbo maintainers as I am sure
57 > > they have also experienced this kind of problem (packages needing to
58 > > be rebuilt after update of other one), maybe they could join forces
59 > > with us to try to reach an exact description of the problem and a
60 > > solution :/
61 >
62 > I'm pretty sure the route Exherbo is going to take with this is very
63 > different, and will involve souped-up USE flags that allow "parts" of a
64 > package (such as its libraries) to be kept around, possibly together
65 > with a special form of blocker that acts only upon installed packages,
66 > with a strict post ordering. It's not going to involve sub-slots, in
67 > any case.
68 >
69
70 Well, probably the problem is to predict when will that be really solved
71 there :(

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

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