Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
From: Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o>
Subject: Re: About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 20:43:54 +0200
El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 20:16 +0200, Pacho Ramos escribió:
> El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 11:03 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
> > On 06/07/2012 10:40 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:43:32 -0700
> > > Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote:
> > >> I can imagine that ABI_SLOT operator deps will be a lot more popular
> > >> than SLOT operator deps, since ABI_SLOT operator deps will accommodate
> > >> the common practice of allowing ABI changes within a particular SLOT.
> > > 
> > > You're missing out on a brilliant opportunity to encourage developers
> > > put in a bit more work to save users a huge amount of pain here.
> > 
> > What about cases like the dbus-glib and glib:2 dependency, where it's
> > just too much trouble to use SLOT operator deps? Wouldn't it be better
> > to have a little flexibility, so that we can accommodate more packages?
> > 
> > As a workaround for SLOT operator deps, I suppose that glib:1 could be
> > split into a separate glib-legacy package, in order to facilitate the
> > use of SLOT operator dependencies in dbus-glib. That way, it would be
> > easy to match glib-2.x and not have to worry about trying not to match
> > glib-1.x.
> 
> 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?
Attachment:
signature.asc (This is a digitally signed message part)
Replies:
Re: About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue
-- Ciaran McCreesh
References:
Re: About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue
-- Zac Medico
Re: About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue
-- Ciaran McCreesh
Re: About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue
-- Pacho Ramos
Re: About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue
-- Ciaran McCreesh
Re: About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue
-- Pacho Ramos
Re: About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue
-- Ciaran McCreesh
Re: About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue
-- Pacho Ramos
Re: About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue
-- Ciaran McCreesh
Re: About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue
-- Zac Medico
Re: About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue
-- Brian Harring
Re: About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue
-- Zac Medico
Re: About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue
-- Ciaran McCreesh
Re: About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue
-- Zac Medico
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue
Next by thread:
Re: About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue
Previous by date:
Re: About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue
Next by date:
Re: About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue


Updated Jun 29, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.