1 |
On 06/09/2012 05:15 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
> On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 12:31:55 -0700 |
3 |
> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
>> We can just write a specification for this one feature, and ask the |
5 |
>> Council to approve it. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> The last feature someone did that way was REQUIRED_USE, and we all know |
8 |
> how that turned out... |
9 |
> |
10 |
> What you *should* do is get an implementation, then try converting lots |
11 |
> of ebuilds with and without being able to use ABI_SLOT. |
12 |
|
13 |
Okay, so let's create an ABI_SLOT operator specification, just for |
14 |
testing purposes. In order to keep things as simple as possible, let's |
15 |
make our model as close as possible to the existing SLOT operator model. |
16 |
|
17 |
Ebuilds that do not define ABI_SLOT will be considered to have an |
18 |
implicit ABI_SLOT value that is equal to their SLOT value. This way, |
19 |
ABI_SLOT operator deps will behave identically to SLOT operator deps |
20 |
when ABI_SLOT is undefined. |
21 |
|
22 |
A dependency atom will have optional SLOT and ABI_SLOT parts. Using the |
23 |
dbus-glib depedency on glib:2 as an example [1], the dbus-glib |
24 |
dependency will be expressed with an atom such as dev-libs/glib:2:= and |
25 |
the package manager will translate that atom to dev-libs/glib:2:=2.32 at |
26 |
build time. So, ':' is always used to distinguish SLOT deps, and ':=' is |
27 |
always used to distinguish ABI_SLOT deps. Is that syntax good? |
28 |
|
29 |
[1] |
30 |
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_9f2d42da278f4815f2bfe57bfc5c2de5.xml |
31 |
-- |
32 |
Thanks, |
33 |
Zac |