| 1 |
On 06/07/2012 10:40 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 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 |
What about cases like the dbus-glib and glib:2 dependency, where it's |
| 12 |
just too much trouble to use SLOT operator deps? Wouldn't it be better |
| 13 |
to have a little flexibility, so that we can accommodate more packages? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
As a workaround for SLOT operator deps, I suppose that glib:1 could be |
| 16 |
split into a separate glib-legacy package, in order to facilitate the |
| 17 |
use of SLOT operator dependencies in dbus-glib. That way, it would be |
| 18 |
easy to match glib-2.x and not have to worry about trying not to match |
| 19 |
glib-1.x. |
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Thanks, |
| 22 |
Zac |
Archives