1 |
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> On Sun, 2 Mar 2014 14:44:52 -0500 |
3 |
> Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> Unless I have missed mgorny's point here, this isn't just about |
6 |
>> libraries that have currently subslots. This is about every single |
7 |
>> library in the tree. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> Some (many?) libraries rarely change API/ABI so it wouldn't make sense |
10 |
> to include those in a first run. |
11 |
> |
12 |
>> That's a LOT of bugs. I guess filing bugs is doable if we handle a few |
13 |
>> libraries at a time. However, it would be nice to avoid the repetitive |
14 |
>> "paperwork" and just let people get the job done. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> Better yet, focus on those (few?) libraries that regularly change |
17 |
> APIs/ABIs and for which adding sub-SLOT deps to dependent ebuilds makes |
18 |
> sense *now*. |
19 |
> |
20 |
|
21 |
Ah, what a silly thing for me to overlook. That does change my outlook. |