Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] About what would be included in EAPI5
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:33:35
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] About what would be included in EAPI5 by Ciaran McCreesh
Hash: SHA256

On 16/06/12 12:24 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 17:16:34 +0200 Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> > wrote: >> I can try to check it if no maintainer shows more packages >> showing this stable API unstable ABIs issues > > Please do. This is a fairly important point: if the number of > affected packages is small, there's no point in introducing > sub-slots. >
I don't know about that -- I think we still very much need sub-slots. There is still a rather important distinction here -- SLOTS are currently used not to specify API, but to specify particular API groups that developers of said package are willing to support being installed (usually in parallel). For cases when developers decide it is not a good idea to support multiple APIs at a time (i go back to libpng here as an example of this current practice), 'SLOT=0' is still a valuable specification. Sub-slots will allow the actual API to be specified in this case (which as has been described will trigger rebuilds of consumers when necessary, if consumers *DEPEND on 'pkg:0=' or whatever the exact syntax will be) It's one thing for slot-operators in EAPI=5 to provide new tools to ensure better dependency handling; it's something else to assume the entire tree is going to be converted so that every package acting as a dependency will have a SLOT= reflecting the true API version rather than SLOT=0 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAk/fO/gACgkQ2ugaI38ACPBlNwD6Aw39lxsdGFSmHUqnzU+37A1P Z4x5TAtIrFsk7qK4y80A/RFpvD3J4YL8xonLKDWsey14BsKgq1Yz3VD5wlyDKJFd =FhFC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----