Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Alec Warner <antarus@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] xorg-server 1.0.99/1.1 ABI break
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 20:51:16
Message-Id: 4443FF00.1090109@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] xorg-server 1.0.99/1.1 ABI break by Donnie Berkholz
1 Donnie Berkholz wrote:
2 > Olivier CrĂȘte wrote:
3 >
4 >> On Mon, 2006-17-04 at 13:05 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
5 >>
6 >>> Alec Warner wrote:
7 >>>
8 >>>> Well the semantics of the blocker is that the new driver won't work
9 >>>> with the old server; is that true? Or just the old drivers won't
10 >>>> work with the new server?
11 >>>
12 >>> New server requires new drivers. Old server requires old drivers.
13 >>> There is no valid combination of new and old.
14 >>
15 >>
16 >> Then you should probably has new drivers block old servers and new
17 >> servers block old drivers...
18 >
19 >
20 > OK, let's think about the results of this.
21 >
22 > New drivers block old servers:
23 > Rather, why wouldn't new drivers depend on a new server? This makes
24 > sense and is already what we're doing.
25 >
26 > New servers block old drivers:
27 > This will require people to uninstall all their drivers to upgrade
28 > their server. It will not automatically reinstall them in the 'emerge -u
29 > xorg-server' case, but it _should_ reinstall them in the 'emerge -u
30 > world' case _if_ they're using the xorg-x11 metabuild.
31 >
32
33 I'll take TGL's suggestion, New server PDEPENDS on new drivers.
34
35 New drivers need new server, old drivers won't work with new server,
36 doesn't touch the old driver ebuilds at all; I don't particularly see a
37 down side ;)
38
39 > I'm not sure whether portage does a --deep by default now, but I think
40 > that's what is necessary for correct behavior in the 'emerge -u world'
41 > case.
42 It doesn't.
43 >
44 > Thanks,
45 > Donnie
46
47 --
48 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list