1 |
Dnia 2013-12-08, o godz. 17:56:12 |
2 |
Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o> napisał(a): |
3 |
|
4 |
> Hello fellow developers |
5 |
> |
6 |
> == Situation == |
7 |
> |
8 |
> When specifying a dependency like cat/pkg it will default to cat/pkg:* |
9 |
> which is defined in `man 5 ebuild` as: |
10 |
> |
11 |
> * Indicates that any slot value is acceptable. In addition, |
12 |
> for runtime dependencies, indicates that the package will not |
13 |
> break if the matched package is uninstalled and replaced by a |
14 |
> different matching package in a different slot. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> This default reflects different behavior than what we use slots for, |
17 |
> besides allowing side-by-side installations we rather use it to |
18 |
> specifically depend on a new major version. (eg. dev-libs/glib). |
19 |
> |
20 |
> Let's say I want to a add a new major version of cat/pkg to the Portage |
21 |
> tree, introducing it in the same SLOT="0" isn't an option. This gives |
22 |
> us two options, one is SLOT="2", the other is to create cat/pkg2 or so. |
23 |
> |
24 |
> Creating a new SLOT is the most sane thing going forward; but, as the |
25 |
> default (:*) depends on any SLOT, this needs a half thousand commits to |
26 |
> fix up reverse dependencies. Thus, instead a new package is made. [1] |
27 |
> |
28 |
> When our defaults force us down such path, that can't be good and it |
29 |
> affects the quality of our Portage tree; so, this makes me wonder, can |
30 |
> we change the default from :* to :0? What do you think? |
31 |
> |
32 |
> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=493652 |
33 |
> "media-libs/libsdl2: should be a SLOT=2 of media-libs/libsdl" |
34 |
> |
35 |
> == Task == |
36 |
> |
37 |
> If we agree we do this; in order to change :* to :0, we need to change |
38 |
> the PMS to cover this change and implement it in the package managers. |
39 |
> |
40 |
> Before we do that, we need to evaluate how practical this is to apply. |
41 |
> While we are trying to fix the default behavior, what would changing |
42 |
> the default from :* to :0 break? |
43 |
|
44 |
Packages that don't have SLOT=0 :). I was wondering about this some |
45 |
time ago and this is where I stopped. You can't simply assume every |
46 |
single package will have SLOT=0 as the default. |
47 |
|
48 |
-- |
49 |
Best regards, |
50 |
Michał Górny |