-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 10/06/12 08:45 AM, Davide Pesavento wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
> <ciaran.mccreesh@...> wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 13:55:53 -0700 Zac Medico
>> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> A dependency atom will have optional SLOT and ABI_SLOT parts.
>>> Using the dbus-glib depedency on glib:2 as an example , the
>>> dbus-glib dependency will be expressed with an atom such as
>>> dev-libs/glib:2:= and the package manager will translate that
>>> atom to dev-libs/glib:2:=2.32 at build time. So, ':' is always
>>> used to distinguish SLOT deps, and ':=' is always used to
>>> distinguish ABI_SLOT deps. Is that syntax good?
>> Here's a nicer syntax: no ABI_SLOT variable, and SLOT="2/2.32".
>> Then you can do explicit :2/2.32 dependencies if you like, or :2
>> (which would match SLOT="2" or SLOT="2/anything"), or :2= (which
>> gets rewritten to :2/2.32=) or :2*. If an ebuild does SLOT="2",
>> it's treated as 2/2.
> I was going to propose a very similar syntax, i.e. using a slash
> to separate the regular SLOT part from the new ABI part, so +1 for
> Ciaran's proposal.
> Thanks, Pesa
This looks very promising -- then for libs where we only want to
support one API, we could still use SLOT=0 via (ie for libpng)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----