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