| 1 |
On 07-09-2012 19:21:57 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 20:17:17 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > Eh, no. Now it just always breaks when you perform a downgrade, and |
| 5 |
> > revdev-rebuild or @preserved-libs won't help you. I prefer that you |
| 6 |
> > give best practices how to use sub-slots to make Portage also able to |
| 7 |
> > do a recompile of bar when libfnord in the same SLOT gets downgraded. |
| 8 |
> > (Because minors are used for compatible changes -- additions -- to the |
| 9 |
> > ABI.) |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Downgrades aren't covered by sub-slots, slots, regular dependencies, |
| 12 |
> libtool, or anything else. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
It seems I mistakenly took slot-operator-deps and sub-slots as something |
| 15 |
that can be mapped onto ABIs. Doing so, however has proven to be wrong. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
It appears slot-operator-deps do have some resemblance with ABI here |
| 18 |
(especially if :* would be written in PMS such that it only allows |
| 19 |
upgrades, no downgrades), but sub-slots are completely unrelated. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I don't like the mixing of the two in a single var, at all. I think I'd |
| 22 |
much more prefer Portage to understand ABIs and potentially versions, to |
| 23 |
make it explicit why it is doing what. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 28 |
Gentoo on a different level |
Archives