1 |
On 06/07/2012 11:04 AM, Ralph Sennhauser wrote: |
2 |
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:43:32 -0700 |
3 |
> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> On 06/07/2012 01:24 AM, Brian Harring wrote: |
6 |
>>> On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 05:43:49PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: |
7 |
>>>> On 06/06/2012 12:23 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
8 |
>>>>> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 21:16:05 +0200 |
9 |
>>>>> Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
10 |
>>>>>> Well, I think reading this thread is more or less clear what it |
11 |
>>>>>> would be supposed to do, also Zac suggested it and looks to have |
12 |
>>>>>> an idea about what should it do. |
13 |
>>>>> |
14 |
>>>>> There's a big leap from "more or less clear" and "an idea" to the |
15 |
>>>>> kind of knowledge we want to have. Think REQUIRED_USE for how |
16 |
>>>>> this can go wrong... |
17 |
>>>>> |
18 |
>>>>> If you think ABI_SLOT is essential, why not try implementing it |
19 |
>>>>> and trying it out in a large number of packages, and reporting |
20 |
>>>>> your results? |
21 |
>>>> |
22 |
>>>> It's pretty close to the SLOT operator model, and it seems like it |
23 |
>>>> should work fine. We can deploy EAPI 5_pre1 with ABI_SLOT support, |
24 |
>>>> and test it in an overlay before we include it in the final EAPI 5. |
25 |
>>> |
26 |
>>> I'd prefer you nailing down the details a bit more before slipping |
27 |
>>> it into an EAPI called "5_pre1"; aside from usual complaints, |
28 |
>>> frankly I'd rather not have to figure out the design of it via |
29 |
>>> raiding the patches out of portage history ;) |
30 |
>> |
31 |
>> Ciaran already has SLOT operators in his eapi-5 branch of PMS. Maybe |
32 |
>> we can convince him to change it to ABI_SLOT operators. |
33 |
>> |
34 |
> |
35 |
> Whether we can convince Ciaran to change the wording of a feature in a |
36 |
> draft document is utterly irrelevant. |
37 |
> |
38 |
> SLOT operator deps solve a large class of issues and wont get in the |
39 |
> way of solving the ranged dep problem in a later step, be it ABI_SLOT |
40 |
> or something more generic. |
41 |
> |
42 |
> I'm all for getting SLOT operators into EAPI-5 as actually already |
43 |
> intended for earlier EAPIs. EAPI 5 was supposed to be a quick EAPI so |
44 |
> don't let us delay the whole thing because of that. |
45 |
|
46 |
Delay doesn't concern be so much. If SLOT operator deps are the best |
47 |
that we can all agree on for now though, then I can accept that. |
48 |
-- |
49 |
Thanks, |
50 |
Zac |