| 1 |
On 06/07/2012 12:24 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
| 2 |
> El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 12:09 -0700, Zac Medico escribió: |
| 3 |
>> On 06/07/2012 12:00 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 19:44 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió: |
| 5 |
>>>> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 20:43:54 +0200 |
| 6 |
>>>> Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
>>>>>> I would prefer, as a workaround, allow reverse deps to RDEPEND on |
| 8 |
>>>>>> glib:2.* instead. That way it would cover more cases when more than |
| 9 |
>>>>>> two slots are available |
| 10 |
>>>>> |
| 11 |
>>>>> Well, per: |
| 12 |
>>>>> http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/pms.git;a=commitdiff;h=f9f7729c047300e1924ad768a49c660e12c2f906;hp=b7750e67b4772c1064543defb7df6a556f09807b |
| 13 |
>>>>> |
| 14 |
>>>>> looks like "*" usage for SLOTs would be allowed :), or I am |
| 15 |
>>>>> misinterpreting it? |
| 16 |
>>>> |
| 17 |
>>>> It's not a wildcard. |
| 18 |
>>>> |
| 19 |
>>> |
| 20 |
>>> But it looks like a valid usage for cases like glib vs. |
| 21 |
>>> dbus-glib/gobject-introspection I have exposed as example, and also |
| 22 |
>>> allows us to keep "SLOT" over "ABI_SLOT" (at least for this case, not |
| 23 |
>>> sure about others I could be missing now...) |
| 24 |
>> |
| 25 |
>> The :* operator doesn't trigger any rebuilds though. Quoting the PMS |
| 26 |
>> patch that you linked: |
| 27 |
>> |
| 28 |
>> * Indicates that any slot value is acceptable. In addition, for runtime |
| 29 |
>> dependencies, indicates that the package will not break if the matched |
| 30 |
>> package is uninstalled and replaced by a different matching package in a |
| 31 |
>> different slot. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> I mean, use it in conjunction with ":=", one for rebuild and other to |
| 34 |
> indicate any 2.x SLOT fits the "normal" RDEPEND (to not need to |
| 35 |
> periodically update RDEPENDs or need to go back from :SLOT depends to |
| 36 |
> old =category/package-version-* ways) |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> Allowing that, we wouldn't need ABI_SLOT (at least to prevent this issue |
| 39 |
> that arises with using only SLOTs for this) |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
What you're talking about here is more similar to ABI_SLOT operator deps |
| 42 |
than what was originally intended for SLOT operator deps. In other |
| 43 |
words, anyone who is opposed to ABI_SLOT operator deps is likely to also |
| 44 |
be opposed to your proposal. |
| 45 |
-- |
| 46 |
Thanks, |
| 47 |
Zac |
Archives