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 what would be included in EAPI5
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 16:48:20 +0200
El sáb, 16-06-2012 a las 15:31 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 16:29:09 +0200
> Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote:
> > I thought last Zac suggestion of ABI_SLOT modified to use
> > "SLOT=ble/bla" was clear enough and we reached a consensus.
> 
> Possibly. I'm waiting to see an implementation, a bunch of examples and
> a comparison with just using SLOT and := or :*.
> 

I cannot provide you an implementation as I don't have enough skills to
do it, no idea if maybe other dev/people could help on this :/

Regarding the comparison with using only SLOT, the most clear example of
how that solution was a bit worse was that glib vs
dbus-glib/gobject-introspection handling:
- Using only SLOT with := would end up with we needing to update ebuilds
for packages depending on glib on each SLOT bump, that is completely
inviable.
- I suggested then to be able to make that packages depend on :* (for
example, dev-libs/glib:2.*:=, that way, that packages wouldn't need to
get their ebuilds updated as they would still fit inside "2.*" case, but
would still get rebuild (as wanted) due := usage... but you also didn't
like this approach.
- Finally, we ended with SLOT="2/2.32" solution and packages depending
on SLOT=2 (as currently) with the addition of ":=" to get them rebuild
when "/2.32" changes.


> > About what I am trying to solve, I have explained it multiple times in
> > involved thread and won't repeat them once again.
> 
> Describing the problem clearly and correctly, and in the appropriate
> amount of generality, is the hardest and most important part of the
> process. Figuring out what we're trying to solve is far harder than
> writing a bit of code.
> 

What I try to do is to replace the needing of manually rebuilding
packages after updates due ABI changes, like currently occurs with xorg
drivers, g-i and dbus-glib, ocaml-c based apps and cases like that. 

Regarding other problems like needing to use perl-cleaner,
python-updater looks to be covered by another approach of "dynamic
slots" I have just seen in gentoo-dev IRC channel by mgorny, then, that
kind of issues would be uncovered with this (but maybe I am wrong as I
know Zac had a more clear conception about how this ABI_SLOT way would
work and what would it cover)

Attachment:
signature.asc (This is a digitally signed message part)
Replies:
Re: About what would be included in EAPI5
-- Peter Stuge
References:
About what would be included in EAPI5
-- Pacho Ramos
Re: About what would be included in EAPI5
-- Ulrich Mueller
Re: About what would be included in EAPI5
-- Pacho Ramos
Re: About what would be included in EAPI5
-- Ciaran McCreesh
Re: About what would be included in EAPI5
-- Pacho Ramos
Re: About what would be included in EAPI5
-- Ciaran McCreesh
Re: About what would be included in EAPI5
-- Pacho Ramos
Re: About what would be included in EAPI5
-- Ciaran McCreesh
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: About what would be included in EAPI5
Next by thread:
Re: About what would be included in EAPI5
Previous by date:
Lastrites: sys-kernel/cluster-sources
Next by date:
Re: About what would be included in EAPI5


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.