| 1 |
On Monday 26 December 2005 21:28, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> If they're purely in DEPEND, that one isn't even an incompatability. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Right. But it's not that unlikely to see such a corner case sooner or later |
| 5 |
and it would be good if Portage catches it, instead spitting out a weird |
| 6 |
message, leaving the root of the issue in the dark. Should be also simple to |
| 7 |
write a test case. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> Well, any library that changes ABI should use a different SLOT for each |
| 10 |
> revision. So SLOT depends should be able to replace the need for = and |
| 11 |
> ~ and < and <= dependencies entirely. Which is a good thing, since |
| 12 |
> those atoms make dependency resolution a general-case unsolvable |
| 13 |
> problem. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
The problem is not the SLOT change, but to build "foo" depending on "bar" |
| 16 |
against KDE X, while bar is built against KDE Y. "foo" and "bar" support all |
| 17 |
slotted KDE versions, but they need to be build against the same one. You |
| 18 |
simply cannot express this via slot dependencies, so this feature is useless |
| 19 |
for KDE packages. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> The existing syntax is just as extensible. Up the EABI revision, and |
| 22 |
> start adding new syntax as needed. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
EAPI has nothing to do with the consistency of the syntax. Getting it once |
| 25 |
right, is what you usually call for. I prefer clean data structures. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Carsten |
Archives