| 1 |
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:48:08 +0300 |
| 2 |
Mart Raudsepp <leio@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > The best installed version that matches the spec is always picked |
| 4 |
> > for :=. We originally considered making this more complicated, or |
| 5 |
> > possibly making ways of saying "all installed slots", but neither |
| 6 |
> > appears to have a legitimate use case. The latter in particular |
| 7 |
> > would only encourage abuse (people might mistakenly think it's a |
| 8 |
> > solution to the Python / Ruby ABIs thing). |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I don't think that really works in all cases, e.g in combination with |
| 11 |
> PDEPEND or such. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
It works in all cases where you're guaranteed to know at build time |
| 14 |
what versions are there -- that is to say, it works for things that are |
| 15 |
listed both in DEPEND and in RDEPEND. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> So to make this easy for everybody in the future, do you perhaps have |
| 18 |
> a concrete ebuild code example that shows how exactly to do it in an |
| 19 |
> ebuild pkg_setup or src_configure exactly? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Most things that are affected by this will just work automatically. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> My main open issue with SLOT-OPERATOR-DEPS is about the :* syntax, and |
| 24 |
> specifically how that potentially works un-intuituvely with some |
| 25 |
> future syntax regarding list of slots. The feature concept itself |
| 26 |
> seems sound and reasonable, but I think we might be able to do better |
| 27 |
> with the syntax for the long run when slot lists come into play. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
It fits in fine with the syntax we've been thinking of using for slot |
| 30 |
groups and version ranges. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives