| 1 |
El mié, 06-06-2012 a las 19:15 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 20:02:24 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > Probably other gnome team could reply this better than me, but I don't |
| 5 |
> > think slotting every glib-2 due ABI changes deserves the huge effort. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Think of the users. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I am thinking on them (well, I started this thread because I was |
| 10 |
thinking as a user). |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> > Also, we want people to rebuild them against, for example, glib-2.32 |
| 14 |
> > ABI, not to keep glib-2.30 and 2.32 installed in parallel and some |
| 15 |
> > packages built against 2.30 and others against 2.32. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Well, you can do that if you really want... |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> > Also, how could this be handled in dbus-glib side? I mean, would we |
| 20 |
> > need to update dbus-glib update from RDEPENDing on glib:2.30 to |
| 21 |
> > glib:2.32? :O |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Noooooo. You'd use := dependencies, possibly with a >= constraint. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
But, what would occur if we have three slots (for example gtk+), and app |
| 27 |
needs to RDEPEND on slot 2? How would we set it to use every 2.* SLOT |
| 28 |
and not >=2? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Also, what is the reason to try to skip "ABI_SLOT" way? It would have |
| 31 |
some advantages, and would allow us to make ABI_SLOTs mutually exclusive |
| 32 |
by default (as most cases would need) instead of needing to move this |
| 33 |
"mutual exclussion" on every ebuild needing to use SLOTs for ABI bumps. |
| 34 |
It looks cleaner to me over being constraint to SLOT :| |
Archives