1 |
El mié, 06-06-2012 a las 19:33 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió: |
2 |
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 20:30:52 +0200 |
3 |
> Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> > > > Also, how could this be handled in dbus-glib side? I mean, would |
5 |
> > > > we need to update dbus-glib update from RDEPENDing on glib:2.30 to |
6 |
> > > > glib:2.32? :O |
7 |
> > > |
8 |
> > > Noooooo. You'd use := dependencies, possibly with a >= constraint. |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > But, what would occur if we have three slots (for example gtk+), and |
11 |
> > app needs to RDEPEND on slot 2? How would we set it to use every 2.* |
12 |
> > SLOT and not >=2? |
13 |
> |
14 |
> Then you'd need range dependencies. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> > Also, what is the reason to try to skip "ABI_SLOT" way? |
17 |
> |
18 |
> No-one's ever implemented it, or knows how it works, or knows what |
19 |
> exactly it's supposed to do. The only advantage ABI_SLOT has is that we |
20 |
> don't know what its limitations are, other than that it doesn't |
21 |
> solve any new problems (although it might slightly simplify certain |
22 |
> specific cases, maybe). |
23 |
|
24 |
Well, I think reading this thread is more or less clear what it would be |
25 |
supposed to do, also Zac suggested it and looks to have an idea about |
26 |
what should it do. In summary: we would still need to use a "top layer" |
27 |
SLOT for packages really being able to be parallel installed and those |
28 |
that need to be parallel installable because reverse dependencies |
29 |
doesn't work with latest version (like glib, libgda, gtk+...). ABI_SLOT |
30 |
would be more "internal" to allow portage managers to know that abi |
31 |
changed and reverse dependencies would need a later rebuild. |