1 |
On 06/07/2012 10:40 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:43:32 -0700 |
3 |
> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
>> I can imagine that ABI_SLOT operator deps will be a lot more popular |
5 |
>> than SLOT operator deps, since ABI_SLOT operator deps will accommodate |
6 |
>> the common practice of allowing ABI changes within a particular SLOT. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> You're missing out on a brilliant opportunity to encourage developers |
9 |
> put in a bit more work to save users a huge amount of pain here. |
10 |
|
11 |
What about cases like the dbus-glib and glib:2 dependency, where it's |
12 |
just too much trouble to use SLOT operator deps? Wouldn't it be better |
13 |
to have a little flexibility, so that we can accommodate more packages? |
14 |
|
15 |
As a workaround for SLOT operator deps, I suppose that glib:1 could be |
16 |
split into a separate glib-legacy package, in order to facilitate the |
17 |
use of SLOT operator dependencies in dbus-glib. That way, it would be |
18 |
easy to match glib-2.x and not have to worry about trying not to match |
19 |
glib-1.x. |
20 |
-- |
21 |
Thanks, |
22 |
Zac |