1 |
On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 23:36:16 +0530 |
2 |
Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Tiziano Müller <dev-zero@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
> > roughly 90% packages depending on one of: |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > sys-libs/db |
8 |
> |
9 |
> Why the hell does this have so many slots in-tree? I am unaware of the |
10 |
> reasons for it. Horribly changed API every release? How does every |
11 |
> other distro handle sys-libs/db ? |
12 |
|
13 |
I know debian has four or five around at any given time. Others I'm not sure. |
14 |
|
15 |
> > dev-libs/boost |
16 |
> |
17 |
> Has one unmasked slot in-tree |
18 |
|
19 |
Soon to be four. |
20 |
|
21 |
> > dev-lang/python |
22 |
> > |
23 |
> |
24 |
> So, wait, you want to depend on specific slots of python and keep them |
25 |
> around, and manage all their related bugs? Isn't that exactly the |
26 |
> opposite of what python upstream suggests, and *ALL* distros do? |
27 |
|
28 |
Why have python slotted at all then? |
29 |
|
30 |
> > Besides: We wouldn't need the need_python_rebuild anymore, users could |
31 |
> > safely uninstall old sys-libs/db versions, old dev-libs/boost versions |
32 |
> |
33 |
> @preserved-libs. More generic, a low-level catch-all for library |
34 |
> breakages, and more convenient for users (rebuild as and when |
35 |
> possible, not *right now* lest everything break). |
36 |
|
37 |
We absolutely can _not_ be relying on preserved libs to save us. |
38 |
It's an umbrella for when the shit hits the fan. You still get to clean up |
39 |
afterwards. It doesn't know anything about interpreted languages (or |
40 |
anything but libraries for that matter). And it doesn't do jack for people |
41 |
uninstalling library slots that are still in use because it doesn't know what |
42 |
slot a package was built against in the first place, and that's exactly the |
43 |
case we're talking about here. |
44 |
|
45 |
> > and the list of packages to reinstall in python-updater boils down to |
46 |
> > what "paludis -u dev-lang/python:2.4" spits out as reverse-dependencies |
47 |
> > (or the corresponding portage command). |
48 |
> |
49 |
> You mean emerge -C dev-lang/python:2.4 ? That'll say "bai bai python". |
50 |
> |
51 |
> In any case, what is wrong with python_need_rebuild ? |
52 |
> |
53 |
> Slot operators need changes to the ebuilds, so does python_need_rebuild. |
54 |
> Slot operators need an EAPI bump for the ebuild, python_need_rebuild doesn't. |
55 |
> |
56 |
> So, isn't python_need_rebuild superior.. ? |
57 |
|
58 |
It's a package-specific workaround for the fact that we have no way of |
59 |
knowing what packages were built against a particular slot. We could |
60 |
implement it for every slotted library in the tree or we could make the |
61 |
workaround unnecessary. |
62 |
|
63 |
|
64 |
-- |
65 |
gcc-porting, by design, by neglect |
66 |
treecleaner, for a fact or just for effect |
67 |
wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 |