| 1 |
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Ciaran McCreesh |
| 2 |
<ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 13:55:53 -0700 |
| 4 |
> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> A dependency atom will have optional SLOT and ABI_SLOT parts. Using |
| 6 |
>> the dbus-glib depedency on glib:2 as an example [1], the dbus-glib |
| 7 |
>> dependency will be expressed with an atom such as dev-libs/glib:2:= |
| 8 |
>> and the package manager will translate that atom to |
| 9 |
>> dev-libs/glib:2:=2.32 at build time. So, ':' is always used to |
| 10 |
>> distinguish SLOT deps, and ':=' is always used to distinguish |
| 11 |
>> ABI_SLOT deps. Is that syntax good? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Here's a nicer syntax: no ABI_SLOT variable, and SLOT="2/2.32". Then you |
| 14 |
> can do explicit :2/2.32 dependencies if you like, or :2 (which would |
| 15 |
> match SLOT="2" or SLOT="2/anything"), or :2= (which gets rewritten |
| 16 |
> to :2/2.32=) or :2*. If an ebuild does SLOT="2", it's treated as 2/2. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I was going to propose a very similar syntax, i.e. using a slash to |
| 20 |
separate the regular SLOT part from the new ABI part, so +1 for |
| 21 |
Ciaran's proposal. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Thanks, |
| 24 |
Pesa |
Archives