| 1 |
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 17:16:34 +0200 |
| 2 |
Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> El sáb, 16-06-2012 a las 15:52 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió: |
| 4 |
> > On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 16:48:20 +0200 |
| 5 |
> > Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > Regarding the comparison with using only SLOT, the most clear |
| 7 |
> > > example of how that solution was a bit worse was that glib vs |
| 8 |
> > > dbus-glib/gobject-introspection handling: |
| 9 |
> > > - Using only SLOT with := would end up with we needing to update |
| 10 |
> > > ebuilds for packages depending on glib on each SLOT bump, that is |
| 11 |
> > > completely inviable. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > What about if ranged dependencies existed? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I think this was already discussed in the same thread, but maybe we |
| 16 |
> are thinking in different things, could you please explain me a bit |
| 17 |
> more what do you mean by "ranged dependencies"? (if it would include |
| 18 |
> an example, even better :)) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Being able to say something like >=2&<3. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> I can try to check it if no maintainer shows more packages |
| 23 |
> showing this stable API unstable ABIs issues |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Please do. This is a fairly important point: if the number of affected |
| 26 |
packages is small, there's no point in introducing sub-slots. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> > You're misunderstanding the point of the * there. The * has nothing |
| 29 |
> > to do with wildcarding. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> Probably, what is "*" sense in this context? I was thinking more on a |
| 32 |
> bash context when I would use "*" to fit any 2.x case |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
It means "and the slot can be switched at runtime, without causing |
| 35 |
breakage". Thus it's only meaningful on dependencies that are both |
| 36 |
build- and run-. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
The :*/:= feature was designed to solve one specific problem: if a user |
| 39 |
has foo installed, and foo deps upon bar, and bar:1 is installed, and |
| 40 |
the user wants to install bar:2 and then uninstall bar:1, will foo |
| 41 |
break? :* means no, := means yes. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
> Also, maybe you could talk with other exherbo maintainers as I am sure |
| 44 |
> they have also experienced this kind of problem (packages needing to |
| 45 |
> be rebuilt after update of other one), maybe they could join forces |
| 46 |
> with us to try to reach an exact description of the problem and a |
| 47 |
> solution :/ |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
I'm pretty sure the route Exherbo is going to take with this is very |
| 50 |
different, and will involve souped-up USE flags that allow "parts" of a |
| 51 |
package (such as its libraries) to be kept around, possibly together |
| 52 |
with a special form of blocker that acts only upon installed packages, |
| 53 |
with a strict post ordering. It's not going to involve sub-slots, in |
| 54 |
any case. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
-- |
| 57 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives