Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 19:33:38
Message-Id: 4FD2532B.4030506@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue by Pacho Ramos
On 06/08/2012 12:23 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El vie, 08-06-2012 a las 12:16 -0700, Zac Medico escribió: >> On 06/08/2012 01:38 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: >>> El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 12:33 -0700, Zac Medico escribió: >>>> On 06/07/2012 12:24 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: >>>>> El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 12:09 -0700, Zac Medico escribió: >>>>>> On 06/07/2012 12:00 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: >>>>>>> El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 19:44 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió: >>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 20:43:54 +0200 >>>>>>>> Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> I would prefer, as a workaround, allow reverse deps to RDEPEND on >>>>>>>>>> glib:2.* instead. That way it would cover more cases when more than >>>>>>>>>> two slots are available >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Well, per: >>>>>>>>> http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/pms.git;a=commitdiff;h=f9f7729c047300e1924ad768a49c660e12c2f906;hp=b7750e67b4772c1064543defb7df6a556f09807b >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> looks like "*" usage for SLOTs would be allowed :), or I am >>>>>>>>> misinterpreting it? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's not a wildcard. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But it looks like a valid usage for cases like glib vs. >>>>>>> dbus-glib/gobject-introspection I have exposed as example, and also >>>>>>> allows us to keep "SLOT" over "ABI_SLOT" (at least for this case, not >>>>>>> sure about others I could be missing now...) >>>>>> >>>>>> The :* operator doesn't trigger any rebuilds though. Quoting the PMS >>>>>> patch that you linked: >>>>>> >>>>>> * Indicates that any slot value is acceptable. In addition, for runtime >>>>>> dependencies, indicates that the package will not break if the matched >>>>>> package is uninstalled and replaced by a different matching package in a >>>>>> different slot. >>>>> >>>>> I mean, use it in conjunction with ":=", one for rebuild and other to >>>>> indicate any 2.x SLOT fits the "normal" RDEPEND (to not need to >>>>> periodically update RDEPENDs or need to go back from :SLOT depends to >>>>> old =category/package-version-* ways) >>>>> >>>>> Allowing that, we wouldn't need ABI_SLOT (at least to prevent this issue >>>>> that arises with using only SLOTs for this) >>>> >>>> What you're talking about here is more similar to ABI_SLOT operator deps >>>> than what was originally intended for SLOT operator deps. In other >>>> words, anyone who is opposed to ABI_SLOT operator deps is likely to also >>>> be opposed to your proposal. >>> >>> Oh :(, and what is the reason to want to prevent this behavior? Looks >>> much simpler to me than needing to use ranges for dependencies or >>> needing to create "compat" packages to hide the problem :| >> >> It's close enough to ABI_SLOT that it would make more sense just to use >> ABI_SLOT because it's more flexible. > > In that case, I think it's clear we need ABI_SLOT ;) The problem is how > to document it in a way people agree with including it for eapi5 :|
We can just write a specification for this one feature, and ask the Council to approve it. -- Thanks, Zac

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
Re: [gentoo-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o>