1 |
On 06/07/2012 12:24 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
2 |
> El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 12:09 -0700, Zac Medico escribió: |
3 |
>> On 06/07/2012 12:00 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
4 |
>>> El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 19:44 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió: |
5 |
>>>> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 20:43:54 +0200 |
6 |
>>>> Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
7 |
>>>>>> I would prefer, as a workaround, allow reverse deps to RDEPEND on |
8 |
>>>>>> glib:2.* instead. That way it would cover more cases when more than |
9 |
>>>>>> two slots are available |
10 |
>>>>> |
11 |
>>>>> Well, per: |
12 |
>>>>> http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/pms.git;a=commitdiff;h=f9f7729c047300e1924ad768a49c660e12c2f906;hp=b7750e67b4772c1064543defb7df6a556f09807b |
13 |
>>>>> |
14 |
>>>>> looks like "*" usage for SLOTs would be allowed :), or I am |
15 |
>>>>> misinterpreting it? |
16 |
>>>> |
17 |
>>>> It's not a wildcard. |
18 |
>>>> |
19 |
>>> |
20 |
>>> But it looks like a valid usage for cases like glib vs. |
21 |
>>> dbus-glib/gobject-introspection I have exposed as example, and also |
22 |
>>> allows us to keep "SLOT" over "ABI_SLOT" (at least for this case, not |
23 |
>>> sure about others I could be missing now...) |
24 |
>> |
25 |
>> The :* operator doesn't trigger any rebuilds though. Quoting the PMS |
26 |
>> patch that you linked: |
27 |
>> |
28 |
>> * Indicates that any slot value is acceptable. In addition, for runtime |
29 |
>> dependencies, indicates that the package will not break if the matched |
30 |
>> package is uninstalled and replaced by a different matching package in a |
31 |
>> different slot. |
32 |
> |
33 |
> I mean, use it in conjunction with ":=", one for rebuild and other to |
34 |
> indicate any 2.x SLOT fits the "normal" RDEPEND (to not need to |
35 |
> periodically update RDEPENDs or need to go back from :SLOT depends to |
36 |
> old =category/package-version-* ways) |
37 |
> |
38 |
> Allowing that, we wouldn't need ABI_SLOT (at least to prevent this issue |
39 |
> that arises with using only SLOTs for this) |
40 |
|
41 |
What you're talking about here is more similar to ABI_SLOT operator deps |
42 |
than what was originally intended for SLOT operator deps. In other |
43 |
words, anyone who is opposed to ABI_SLOT operator deps is likely to also |
44 |
be opposed to your proposal. |
45 |
-- |
46 |
Thanks, |
47 |
Zac |