| 1 |
On 06/08/2012 01:38 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
| 2 |
> El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 12:33 -0700, Zac Medico escribió: |
| 3 |
>> On 06/07/2012 12:24 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 12:09 -0700, Zac Medico escribió: |
| 5 |
>>>> On 06/07/2012 12:00 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>>> El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 19:44 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió: |
| 7 |
>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 20:43:54 +0200 |
| 8 |
>>>>>> Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
| 9 |
>>>>>>>> I would prefer, as a workaround, allow reverse deps to RDEPEND on |
| 10 |
>>>>>>>> glib:2.* instead. That way it would cover more cases when more than |
| 11 |
>>>>>>>> two slots are available |
| 12 |
>>>>>>> |
| 13 |
>>>>>>> Well, per: |
| 14 |
>>>>>>> http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/pms.git;a=commitdiff;h=f9f7729c047300e1924ad768a49c660e12c2f906;hp=b7750e67b4772c1064543defb7df6a556f09807b |
| 15 |
>>>>>>> |
| 16 |
>>>>>>> looks like "*" usage for SLOTs would be allowed :), or I am |
| 17 |
>>>>>>> misinterpreting it? |
| 18 |
>>>>>> |
| 19 |
>>>>>> It's not a wildcard. |
| 20 |
>>>>>> |
| 21 |
>>>>> |
| 22 |
>>>>> But it looks like a valid usage for cases like glib vs. |
| 23 |
>>>>> dbus-glib/gobject-introspection I have exposed as example, and also |
| 24 |
>>>>> allows us to keep "SLOT" over "ABI_SLOT" (at least for this case, not |
| 25 |
>>>>> sure about others I could be missing now...) |
| 26 |
>>>> |
| 27 |
>>>> The :* operator doesn't trigger any rebuilds though. Quoting the PMS |
| 28 |
>>>> patch that you linked: |
| 29 |
>>>> |
| 30 |
>>>> * Indicates that any slot value is acceptable. In addition, for runtime |
| 31 |
>>>> dependencies, indicates that the package will not break if the matched |
| 32 |
>>>> package is uninstalled and replaced by a different matching package in a |
| 33 |
>>>> different slot. |
| 34 |
>>> |
| 35 |
>>> I mean, use it in conjunction with ":=", one for rebuild and other to |
| 36 |
>>> indicate any 2.x SLOT fits the "normal" RDEPEND (to not need to |
| 37 |
>>> periodically update RDEPENDs or need to go back from :SLOT depends to |
| 38 |
>>> old =category/package-version-* ways) |
| 39 |
>>> |
| 40 |
>>> Allowing that, we wouldn't need ABI_SLOT (at least to prevent this issue |
| 41 |
>>> that arises with using only SLOTs for this) |
| 42 |
>> |
| 43 |
>> What you're talking about here is more similar to ABI_SLOT operator deps |
| 44 |
>> than what was originally intended for SLOT operator deps. In other |
| 45 |
>> words, anyone who is opposed to ABI_SLOT operator deps is likely to also |
| 46 |
>> be opposed to your proposal. |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> Oh :(, and what is the reason to want to prevent this behavior? Looks |
| 49 |
> much simpler to me than needing to use ranges for dependencies or |
| 50 |
> needing to create "compat" packages to hide the problem :| |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
It's close enough to ABI_SLOT that it would make more sense just to use |
| 53 |
ABI_SLOT because it's more flexible. |
| 54 |
-- |
| 55 |
Thanks, |
| 56 |
Zac |
Archives