| 1 |
On 31/10/16 08:31 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hello, everyone. |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> I would like to work on a major version depedencny specification |
| 5 |
> improvements as part of the next EAPI. For this reason, I'd like to |
| 6 |
> first gather some research on how developers are using the current |
| 7 |
> system, what they find efficient and what they find cumbersome. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Therefore, I would like to ask the following questions: |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> 1. How often do you find '~' useful? Do you think there should be |
| 12 |
> additional operators that ignore revision part? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
The only time I have used this is when I've needed to synchronize the |
| 15 |
version of two inter-dependent packages, while wanting to allow the |
| 16 |
revision portion to vary. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I have generally found it a lot more useful to use this in my various |
| 19 |
/etc/portage/ files than in ebuilds, though, especially |
| 20 |
package.accept_keywords |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> 2. How often do you find '=...*' wildcard syntax useful? To what |
| 25 |
> purpose do you use it? Do you find its behavior confusing [1]? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I find that this syntax is rather useful and often is necessary, due |
| 28 |
to it being difficult to properly define both minimum and maximun |
| 29 |
versions otherwise at times -- especially when I want to use the := or |
| 30 |
:0= slot operator. I don't find its behavior confusing once I became |
| 31 |
educated on how it actually works; I do recognize that it *is not* |
| 32 |
intuitive to the layman. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> 3. Do you sometimes find yourself using '<'/'<=' specs that |
| 36 |
> accidentally match _pre/_rc/... versions? |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
No, but that is likely just because I tend not to deal with |
| 39 |
dependencies that have _pre and _rc suffixes. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> 4. What are the common tasks that you find unnecessarily complex / |
| 44 |
> lengthy with the current version specifications? |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
It is cumbersome to deal with limiting slots to a specific subset, |
| 47 |
when wanting to leverage slot-operator rebuilds right now -- |
| 48 |
effectively you need to have two atoms, one with :=, and a second set |
| 49 |
||()'d with each of the slots that are compatible. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
> 5. Do you find any other parts of the current version dependency |
| 53 |
> specifications confusing? |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
The as yet still impossible means of dealing properly with multiple |
| 56 |
packages that should either independently or when switching from one |
| 57 |
to another trigger a (sub)slot rebuild is quite vexing at times. |
Archives