1 |
El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 20:16 +0200, Pacho Ramos escribió: |
2 |
> El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 11:03 -0700, Zac Medico escribió: |
3 |
> > On 06/07/2012 10:40 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
4 |
> > > On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:43:32 -0700 |
5 |
> > > Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
> > >> I can imagine that ABI_SLOT operator deps will be a lot more popular |
7 |
> > >> than SLOT operator deps, since ABI_SLOT operator deps will accommodate |
8 |
> > >> the common practice of allowing ABI changes within a particular SLOT. |
9 |
> > > |
10 |
> > > You're missing out on a brilliant opportunity to encourage developers |
11 |
> > > put in a bit more work to save users a huge amount of pain here. |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> > What about cases like the dbus-glib and glib:2 dependency, where it's |
14 |
> > just too much trouble to use SLOT operator deps? Wouldn't it be better |
15 |
> > to have a little flexibility, so that we can accommodate more packages? |
16 |
> > |
17 |
> > As a workaround for SLOT operator deps, I suppose that glib:1 could be |
18 |
> > split into a separate glib-legacy package, in order to facilitate the |
19 |
> > use of SLOT operator dependencies in dbus-glib. That way, it would be |
20 |
> > easy to match glib-2.x and not have to worry about trying not to match |
21 |
> > glib-1.x. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> I would prefer, as a workaround, allow reverse deps to RDEPEND on |
24 |
> glib:2.* instead. That way it would cover more cases when more than two |
25 |
> slots are available |
26 |
|
27 |
Well, per: |
28 |
http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/pms.git;a=commitdiff;h=f9f7729c047300e1924ad768a49c660e12c2f906;hp=b7750e67b4772c1064543defb7df6a556f09807b |
29 |
|
30 |
looks like "*" usage for SLOTs would be allowed :), or I am |
31 |
misinterpreting it? |