1 |
On 09/19/2015 12:08 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
|
4 |
Thanks for the thread, but I have a small remark... |
5 |
|
6 |
|
7 |
> |
8 |
> With we trying to move to finally disable dymamic-deps and stop relying |
9 |
> on them completely, an old problem will be a bit more noticeable now: |
10 |
> |
11 |
> - Tons of package RDEPEND on A |
12 |
> - Long time after that, A starts to have a new SLOT |
13 |
> - As most reverse deps need to be ported, we need to fix it |
14 |
> retroactively to request the old slot that is known to work. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> Currently, we can see how most of us try to go as quick as possible to |
17 |
> fix the dependencies retroactively setting the proper slot but this |
18 |
> relies on dynamic-deps, if this feature gets disabled, we will need to |
19 |
> make revbumps for all of them and people will need to rebuild all the |
20 |
> reverse deps. This can be really problematic as some of this libs are |
21 |
> used by a ton of packages... I can think on recent examples like |
22 |
> gstreamer, gtk+, glib... for example a few days ago we needed to adapt |
23 |
> reverse deps to the inclusion of a new gtk-sharp slot. |
24 |
> |
25 |
|
26 |
This sounds a little bit like you are suggesting: "fix" all of the |
27 |
dependencies in-place before dynamic deps gets turned off. Please don't |
28 |
do that. It already affects portage users who have turned them off and |
29 |
paludis users... which leaves them with blockers and weird dependency |
30 |
errors. It also affects those that DO use dynamic-deps, since they don't |
31 |
work consistently (which is the whole point of turning them off). |
32 |
|
33 |
Having as little RDEPEND in-place changes in the current ebuild tree as |
34 |
possible is a _requirement_ for us to turn dynamic deps off. So it makes |
35 |
sense to start right now. |
36 |
|
37 |
> On the other hand, if we start always setting the available slots that |
38 |
> we know to work, we can avoid this issue, and this is also completely |
39 |
> future proof becase I don't think we can assume that package B will |
40 |
> always work with the latest available SLOT package A can have in the |
41 |
> future. Then, applying the same policy of we trying to set the versions |
42 |
> in dependencies to the versions we know are compatible, we should do |
43 |
> the same with the slot. |
44 |
> |
45 |
|
46 |
Hmm, you are suggesting to do this even for packages that only have one |
47 |
SLOT anyway? I'm really not sure about this. Depending on the |
48 |
SLOT-naming-scheme that will be introduced it may require massive |
49 |
changes as well. It's hard to look into the future. I personally think |
50 |
it is enough to do that for multislot packages. |