1 |
On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 05:43:49PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: |
2 |
> On 06/06/2012 12:23 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
3 |
> > On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 21:16:05 +0200 |
4 |
> > Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
> >> Well, I think reading this thread is more or less clear what it would |
6 |
> >> be supposed to do, also Zac suggested it and looks to have an idea |
7 |
> >> about what should it do. |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > There's a big leap from "more or less clear" and "an idea" to the kind |
10 |
> > of knowledge we want to have. Think REQUIRED_USE for how this can go |
11 |
> > wrong... |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> > If you think ABI_SLOT is essential, why not try implementing it and |
14 |
> > trying it out in a large number of packages, and reporting your results? |
15 |
> |
16 |
> It's pretty close to the SLOT operator model, and it seems like it |
17 |
> should work fine. We can deploy EAPI 5_pre1 with ABI_SLOT support, and |
18 |
> test it in an overlay before we include it in the final EAPI 5. |
19 |
|
20 |
I'd prefer you nailing down the details a bit more before slipping it |
21 |
into an EAPI called "5_pre1"; aside from usual complaints, frankly I'd |
22 |
rather not have to figure out the design of it via raiding the patches |
23 |
out of portage history ;) |
24 |
|
25 |
If we're going to do this, there should be a way to represent |
26 |
the direction of compatibility. Might be overthinking it, but |
27 |
consider upgrades where new API is added; this does *not* break ABI, |
28 |
it extends it. Going in reverse however *would* break ABI for |
29 |
anything that was using the new additions. This issue can be avoided |
30 |
via usage of version operators w/ appropriate slot binding deps, just |
31 |
seems hanky in light of what we're talking about. |
32 |
|
33 |
I'm perfectly fine w/ ABI_SLOT and SLOT (I proposed a similar thing in |
34 |
'06/'07); I'd however suggest ensuring there is some buy in from devs |
35 |
on that one since that was the main argument against it in the past. |
36 |
|
37 |
That argument may no longer apply, but should be checked imo. |
38 |
|
39 |
~harring |