Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 18:32:35
Message-Id: 1339007452.2706.57.camel@belkin4
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue by Ciaran McCreesh
El mié, 06-06-2012 a las 19:15 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 20:02:24 +0200 > Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: > > Probably other gnome team could reply this better than me, but I don't > > think slotting every glib-2 due ABI changes deserves the huge effort. > > Think of the users.
I am thinking on them (well, I started this thread because I was thinking as a user).
> > > Also, we want people to rebuild them against, for example, glib-2.32 > > ABI, not to keep glib-2.30 and 2.32 installed in parallel and some > > packages built against 2.30 and others against 2.32. > > Well, you can do that if you really want... > > > Also, how could this be handled in dbus-glib side? I mean, would we > > need to update dbus-glib update from RDEPENDing on glib:2.30 to > > glib:2.32? :O > > Noooooo. You'd use := dependencies, possibly with a >= constraint. >
But, what would occur if we have three slots (for example gtk+), and app needs to RDEPEND on slot 2? How would we set it to use every 2.* SLOT and not >=2? Also, what is the reason to try to skip "ABI_SLOT" way? It would have some advantages, and would allow us to make ABI_SLOTs mutually exclusive by default (as most cases would need) instead of needing to move this "mutual exclussion" on every ebuild needing to use SLOTs for ABI bumps. It looks cleaner to me over being constraint to SLOT :|


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>