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: Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>
Subject: Re: RFC about another *DEPEND variable
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 09:52:27 -0400
On Thursday 21 September 2006 07:59, Brian Harring wrote:
> Why have the explicit var?  Because 0.9.7a through 0.9.7c may all be
> compatible, but 0.9.7d isn't.  If you force an automatic algo that
> tries to (effectively) guess, you get a lot of rebuilds through a,b,c,
> end result being folks likely update less because it becomes a bigger
> pain in the ass.

if it isnt compatible then it shouldnt have the same SONAME, simple as 
that ... that is after all the point of encoding the ABI version number into 
the SONAME

forcing devs to maintain a manual var which is basically duplicating the 
SONAME smells like maintenance nightmare
-mike
Attachment:
pgpImiemvmWan.pgp (PGP signature)
Replies:
Re: RFC about another *DEPEND variable
-- Duncan Coutts
Re: RFC about another *DEPEND variable
-- Donnie Berkholz
Re: RFC about another *DEPEND variable
-- Brian Harring
References:
RFC about another *DEPEND variable
-- Alin Nastac
Re: RFC about another *DEPEND variable
-- Luca Barbato
Re: RFC about another *DEPEND variable
-- Brian Harring
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: RFC about another *DEPEND variable
Next by thread:
Re: RFC about another *DEPEND variable
Previous by date:
Re: RFC about another *DEPEND variable
Next by date:
Re: Notification about MD5 support


Updated Jun 17, 2009

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

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