Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: TomWij@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Dependencies default to accept any slot value acceptable (:*), can we default to :0 instead?
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2013 17:17:12
Message-Id: 20131208181644.73c3412b@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Dependencies default to accept any slot value acceptable (:*), can we default to :0 instead? by Tom Wijsman
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

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature