Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] About what would be included in EAPI5
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 16:51:03
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] About what would be included in EAPI5 by Pacho Ramos
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 18:41:51 +0200
Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote:
> > The :*/:= feature was designed to solve one specific problem: if a > > user has foo installed, and foo deps upon bar, and bar:1 is > > installed, and the user wants to install bar:2 and then uninstall > > bar:1, will foo break? :* means no, := means yes. > > And, wouldn't it be covered simply making that package not depend on > any slot specifically?
Some people use "no slot" to mean "and it's fixed at build time", and some use it to mean "and I don't care". We *could* just omit :*, and use := for locking, but an explicit :* means someone has checked their work (and can be verified by repoman) whereas no slot probably means laziness.
> > I'm pretty sure the route Exherbo is going to take with this is very > > different, and will involve souped-up USE flags that allow "parts" > > of a package (such as its libraries) to be kept around, possibly > > together with a special form of blocker that acts only upon > > installed packages, with a strict post ordering. It's not going to > > involve sub-slots, in any case. > > Well, probably the problem is to predict when will that be really > solved there :(
Naah. This is one of those things that requires developers to put quite a lot of exta effort in to their packages in order to improve the quality of experience for users, which means it's not going to be suitable for Gentoo's development model. -- Ciaran McCreesh


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


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] About what would be included in EAPI5 Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o>