Re: [gentoo-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue

[Pacho Ramos]

El vie, 08-06-2012 a las 12:16 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
> On 06/08/2012 01:38 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 12:33 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
> >> On 06/07/2012 12:24 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> >>> El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 12:09 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
> >>>> On 06/07/2012 12:00 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> >>>>> El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 19:44 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> >>>>>> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 20:43:54 +0200
> >>>>>> Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> I would prefer, as a workaround, allow reverse deps to RDEPEND on
> >>>>>>>> glib:2.* instead. That way it would cover more cases when more than
> >>>>>>>> two slots are available
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Well, per:
> >>>>>>> http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/pms.git;a=commitdiff;h=f9f7729c047300e1924ad768a49c660e12c2f906;hp=b7750e67b4772c1064543defb7df6a556f09807b
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> looks like "*" usage for SLOTs would be allowed :), or I am
> >>>>>>> misinterpreting it?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's not a wildcard.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But it looks like a valid usage for cases like glib vs.
> >>>>> dbus-glib/gobject-introspection I have exposed as example, and also
> >>>>> allows us to keep "SLOT" over "ABI_SLOT" (at least for this case, not
> >>>>> sure about others I could be missing now...)
> >>>>
> >>>> The :* operator doesn't trigger any rebuilds though. Quoting the PMS
> >>>> patch that you linked:
> >>>>
> >>>> * Indicates that any slot value is acceptable. In addition, for runtime
> >>>> dependencies, indicates that the package will not break if the matched
> >>>> package is uninstalled and replaced by a different matching package in a
> >>>> different slot.
> >>>
> >>> I mean, use it in conjunction with ":=", one for rebuild and other to
> >>> indicate any 2.x SLOT fits the "normal" RDEPEND (to not need to
> >>> periodically update RDEPENDs or need to go back from :SLOT depends to
> >>> old =category/package-version-* ways)
> >>>
> >>> Allowing that, we wouldn't need ABI_SLOT (at least to prevent this issue
> >>> that arises with using only SLOTs for this)
> >>
> >> What you're talking about here is more similar to ABI_SLOT operator deps
> >> than what was originally intended for SLOT operator deps. In other
> >> words, anyone who is opposed to ABI_SLOT operator deps is likely to also
> >> be opposed to your proposal.
> >
> > Oh :(, and what is the reason to want to prevent this behavior? Looks
> > much simpler to me than needing to use ranges for dependencies or
> > needing to create "compat" packages to hide the problem :|
>
> It's close enough to ABI_SLOT that it would make more sense just to use
> ABI_SLOT because it's more flexible.

In that case, I think it's clear we need ABI_SLOT ;) The problem is how
to document it in a way people agree with including it for eapi5 :|