| 1 |
On 09/11/2012 10:35 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 07:58:01 -0700 |
| 3 |
> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> On 09/11/2012 12:33 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> Hrm. Although... We need to decide how a :3= dep in an ebuild is |
| 6 |
>>> rewritten for VDB. Do we rewrite to to :3/3.3= or to :3=3/3.3? The |
| 7 |
>>> latter has the advantage that we can tell just from the VDB what the |
| 8 |
>>> original spec was. |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>>> The way it's worded without the patch has the benefit that stuff on |
| 11 |
>>> the left of the = is written by the developer, and stuff on the |
| 12 |
>>> right by the package mangler. |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>> Another advantage of the latter one is that when the sub-slot is |
| 15 |
>> implicit, we can omit it from the rewritten dep and there's no |
| 16 |
>> ambiguity about whether or not it's a rewritten dep. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Wouldn't that just be rewriting to :3=3 rather than :3=3/3 then? No |
| 19 |
> ambiguity either way, since the thing to the left of the = is always |
| 20 |
> what's in the ebuild, and to the right is what was locked. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I guess so. I had just woken up when I replied earlier, and my thoughts |
| 23 |
were somewhat hazy. :) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> Anyway, I think I'm retracting this patch. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Cool. BTW, the syntax that's in PMS now came directly from your :2/2.32= |
| 28 |
example here: |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_f0e171be0f12abac2a10069e05e43c73.xml |
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Thanks, |
| 33 |
Zac |
Archives