Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC about another *DEPEND variable
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 14:09:23
Message-Id: 20060921140438.GD30105@seldon
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC about another *DEPEND variable by Mike Frysinger
1 On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 09:52:27AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
2 > On Thursday 21 September 2006 07:59, Brian Harring wrote:
3 > > Why have the explicit var? Because 0.9.7a through 0.9.7c may all be
4 > > compatible, but 0.9.7d isn't. If you force an automatic algo that
5 > > tries to (effectively) guess, you get a lot of rebuilds through a,b,c,
6 > > end result being folks likely update less because it becomes a bigger
7 > > pain in the ass.
8 >
9 > if it isnt compatible then it shouldnt have the same SONAME, simple as
10 > that ... that is after all the point of encoding the ABI version number into
11 > the SONAME
12 >
13 > forcing devs to maintain a manual var which is basically duplicating the
14 > SONAME smells like maintenance nightmare
15
16 I agree; while I'm labeling it ABI, includes both bad soname handling
17 and seperate sonames.
18
19 Re: forcing devs... the request was to fold revdep-rebuild into
20 resolution; in other words, 3 options
21 1) situation gets ignored, stays as is
22 2) all packages are somehow fixed (ultra restrictive deps) to never
23 require revdep-rebuild
24 3) revdep-rebulid capabilities get inline into resolution.
25
26 Feel free to point out a 4th option if I'm missing it, but for the
27 request, that's what exists afaict; meanwhile, stating that pkgs are
28 being stupid, while true, doesn't actually solve the issue :)
29
30 ~harring

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC about another *DEPEND variable Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>