| 1 |
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Tiziano Müller <dev-zero@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> roughly 90% packages depending on one of: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> sys-libs/db |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Why the hell does this have so many slots in-tree? I am unaware of the |
| 7 |
reasons for it. Horribly changed API every release? How does every |
| 8 |
other distro handle sys-libs/db ? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> dev-libs/boost |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Has one unmasked slot in-tree |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> dev-lang/python |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
So, wait, you want to depend on specific slots of python and keep them |
| 18 |
around, and manage all their related bugs? Isn't that exactly the |
| 19 |
opposite of what python upstream suggests, and *ALL* distros do? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> Besides: We wouldn't need the need_python_rebuild anymore, users could |
| 22 |
> safely uninstall old sys-libs/db versions, old dev-libs/boost versions |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
@preserved-libs. More generic, a low-level catch-all for library |
| 25 |
breakages, and more convenient for users (rebuild as and when |
| 26 |
possible, not *right now* lest everything break). |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> and the list of packages to reinstall in python-updater boils down to |
| 29 |
> what "paludis -u dev-lang/python:2.4" spits out as reverse-dependencies |
| 30 |
> (or the corresponding portage command). |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
You mean emerge -C dev-lang/python:2.4 ? That'll say "bai bai python". |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
In any case, what is wrong with python_need_rebuild ? |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Slot operators need changes to the ebuilds, so does python_need_rebuild. |
| 37 |
Slot operators need an EAPI bump for the ebuild, python_need_rebuild doesn't. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
So, isn't python_need_rebuild superior.. ? |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
~Nirbheek Chauhan |
Archives