Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.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 23:55:12
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Dependencies default to accept any slot value acceptable (:*), can we default to :0 instead? by Tom Wijsman
1 On 12/09/2013 12:54 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
3 > Creating a new SLOT is the most sane thing going forward; but, as the
4 > default (:*) depends on any SLOT, this needs a half thousand commits to
5 > fix up reverse dependencies. Thus, instead a new package is made. [1]
8 Pff. Lazy.
12 > When our defaults force us down such path, that can't be good and it
13 > affects the quality of our Portage tree; so, this makes me wonder, can
14 > we change the default from :* to :0? What do you think?
16 That just shifts the breakage to other people, who then have to do more
17 work.
19 > If we agree we do this; in order to change :* to :0, we need to change
20 > the PMS to cover this change and implement it in the package managers.
21 >
22 > Before we do that, we need to evaluate how practical this is to apply.
23 > While we are trying to fix the default behavior, what would changing
24 > the default from :* to :0 break?
25 >
26 > One thing that directly comes to mind is that dependencies that have no
27 > SLOT="0" ebuild present would need us to manually specify a specific
28 > SLOT; given that this is a not so common situation, the amount of
29 > commits needed here is low.
31 And now you make updating a lot more fun, because slotted packages need
32 to be explicitly changed if there's a new slot happening. Just to hide
33 your own laziness.
35 > Another thing that comes to mind is that we need to check what to do
36 > with packages were the highest available version does not belong to
37 > SLOT="0"; technically, restricting these to SLOT="0" will not cause
38 > breakage, it might however cause some blockers. We'll have to look
39 > closer into how we can alleviate this result.
41 Yup, bad idea.
43 500 commits vs. making things more complicated for everyone ... srsly?