| 1 |
Michał Górny posted on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 11:24:43 +0200 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> With the new policy, the simple form of dependencies: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> dev-libs/foo |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> would be only allowed if dev-libs/foo has only one slot. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> If the atom matches more than one slot of a package, one of the |
| 10 |
> following forms would need to be used: |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> 1. dev-libs/bar:* -- if any version of bar is acceptable, |
| 13 |
> and you can replace bar:1 with bar:2 without rebuilding, |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> 2. dev-libs/bar:= -- if any version of bar is acceptable, |
| 16 |
> and you need to rebuild bar when changing slots (and subslots), |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> 3. dev-libs/bar:slot -- if a single slot of bar is acceptable, and you |
| 19 |
> can change subslots without rebuilding, |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> 4. dev-libs/bar:slot= -- if a single slot of bar is acceptable, |
| 22 |
> and you need subslot rebuilds, |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> 5. dev-libs/bar:slot/subslot -- if a single subslot of bar is |
| 25 |
> acceptable, useful mostly for binary packages and pass-through virtuals. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I'm admittedly operating a bit out of my league here so feel free to |
| 28 |
ignore this if it's simply noise, but in the interest of a clearer policy |
| 29 |
I'll take the risk of being stupid... |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Perhaps this can't happen in practice, but there's an obviously missing |
| 32 |
permutation that for completeness (and to avoid questions like this), |
| 33 |
probably should have been covered with a notation such as <can't happen>, |
| 34 |
or perhaps <can happen but not covered, use the stricter #2 form>: |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
6. dev-libs/bar<what?> -- if any version of bar is acceptable, and you |
| 37 |
need to rebuild bar only when changing slots (but not subslots). |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Can it happen? Covered if so? |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Tho you did switch from dev-libs/foo in the initial statement to |
| 42 |
dev-libs/bar in the list of permutations. Normally, I take that to imply |
| 43 |
some relationship between foo and bar, thus the need for two labels |
| 44 |
instead of reusing the first, but if there is such a relationship here I |
| 45 |
don't see it. I am certainly confused but is it because there such a |
| 46 |
relationship that I'm simply not seeing (that possibly eliminates my |
| 47 |
sixth permutation), or did you "switch horses in mid-stream", as the |
| 48 |
saying goes? |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
-- |
| 51 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 52 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 53 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives