| 1 |
On Sun, 2 Mar 2014 14:44:52 -0500 |
| 2 |
Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Unless I have missed mgorny's point here, this isn't just about |
| 5 |
> libraries that have currently subslots. This is about every single |
| 6 |
> library in the tree. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Some (many?) libraries rarely change API/ABI so it wouldn't make sense |
| 9 |
to include those in a first run. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> That's a LOT of bugs. I guess filing bugs is doable if we handle a few |
| 12 |
> libraries at a time. However, it would be nice to avoid the repetitive |
| 13 |
> "paperwork" and just let people get the job done. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Better yet, focus on those (few?) libraries that regularly change |
| 16 |
APIs/ABIs and for which adding sub-SLOT deps to dependent ebuilds makes |
| 17 |
sense *now*. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
That's just the one tracker bug per library and blocking bugs for its |
| 20 |
revdeps, and I'd gladly help out focusing the effort. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
jer |
Archives