Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 18:04:47
Message-Id: 4FD0ECED.10201@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue by Ciaran McCreesh
On 06/07/2012 10:40 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:43:32 -0700 > Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: >> I can imagine that ABI_SLOT operator deps will be a lot more popular >> than SLOT operator deps, since ABI_SLOT operator deps will accommodate >> the common practice of allowing ABI changes within a particular SLOT. > > You're missing out on a brilliant opportunity to encourage developers > put in a bit more work to save users a huge amount of pain here.
What about cases like the dbus-glib and glib:2 dependency, where it's just too much trouble to use SLOT operator deps? Wouldn't it be better to have a little flexibility, so that we can accommodate more packages? As a workaround for SLOT operator deps, I suppose that glib:1 could be split into a separate glib-legacy package, in order to facilitate the use of SLOT operator dependencies in dbus-glib. That way, it would be easy to match glib-2.x and not have to worry about trying not to match glib-1.x. -- Thanks, Zac

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>