| 1 |
On Sun, 08 Dec 2013 18:26:25 +0100 |
| 2 |
Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> El dom, 08-12-2013 a las 18:19 +0100, Andreas K. Huettel escribió: |
| 5 |
> > Am Sonntag, 8. Dezember 2013, 17:56:12 schrieb Tom Wijsman: |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > > When our defaults force us down such path, that can't be good and |
| 8 |
> > > it affects the quality of our Portage tree; so, this makes me |
| 9 |
> > > wonder, can we change the default from :* to :0? What do you |
| 10 |
> > > think? |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > How about changing this in the next EAPI instead? |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > E.g., in EAPI=6, if no slot dependency is given in a dependency |
| 15 |
> > specification, default to :0 |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Other option I have sometimes consider is to force people to specify |
| 18 |
> the slot dependency on a newer eapi -> if a package is working for |
| 19 |
> any slot, specify :*, if not, specify the slot that it needs. That |
| 20 |
> way, this kind of problems would be much less frequent than currently |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Given that the retroactive change I suggest causes a lot of complexity; |
| 23 |
changing it on the next EAPI indeed sounds like one way to go, the |
| 24 |
alternative is to make it a suggestive guideline or policy and cover |
| 25 |
it as a QA check in repoman. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
That QA check could throw a warning when a dependency has no slot. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
PS: Sorry for sending the thread mail twice, IMAP timed out; since |
| 31 |
this is the second time that this happened, I'll pay more attention. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
With kind regards, |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
| 37 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
| 40 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
| 41 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |
Archives