| 1 |
On 30/10/2012 22:44, Tiziano Müller wrote: |
| 2 |
> I agree. It really doesn't make sense to keep unbuildable stuff in the |
| 3 |
> tree. The point of slotting it in the first place was also to force a |
| 4 |
> rebuild of reverse dependencies to have them use newer boost (since at |
| 5 |
> that time when boost slotting was introduced we had some API breakages |
| 6 |
> occurring between versions). |
| 7 |
> Now with the sub-slots we can simply use this feature to tell the PM to |
| 8 |
> rebuild the stuff. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Well, as long as the soname is correct (which it is), with |
| 11 |
preserved-rebuild (which is now available on ~arch Portage as well), |
| 12 |
this is basically already possible to some extent without even using |
| 13 |
subslots. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Each new minor version bump (1.49 -> 1.50) will orphan the 1.49 |
| 16 |
libraries, @preserved-rebuild will rebuild the linked packages. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Of course for those that don't link to the objects, but only use the |
| 19 |
headers, the sub-slots make it possible as well. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes |
| 23 |
flameeyes@×××××××××.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ |
Archives