Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:27:41
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue by Brian Harring
Hash: SHA256

On 10/06/12 06:49 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 01:25:55PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 13:55:53 -0700 Zac Medico >> <zmedico@g.o> wrote: >>> A dependency atom will have optional SLOT and ABI_SLOT parts. >>> Using the dbus-glib depedency on glib:2 as an example [1], the >>> dbus-glib dependency will be expressed with an atom such as >>> dev-libs/glib:2:= and the package manager will translate that >>> atom to dev-libs/glib:2:=2.32 at build time. So, ':' is always >>> used to distinguish SLOT deps, and ':=' is always used to >>> distinguish ABI_SLOT deps. Is that syntax good? >> >> Here's a nicer syntax: no ABI_SLOT variable, and SLOT="2/2.32". > > Hate the slash; just looks ugly to me (so starts the bikeshed). > > Sans that naggle, notions fine however; not sure I'm a fan of > people being able to specify the exact ABI they need from an ebuild > while it's in source form, but may be of use for emul-* packages. > > ~harring >
It's power will come from detection of the different SLOT= assignment between ebuilds of a particular library package. I don't forsee that there is going to be very much usage of the '/[ABI]' part in *DEPEND. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAk/XX7QACgkQ2ugaI38ACPDo6QD/XqsVP0UWmLrzxwFF1f2W6UsM aA3wM6aqYX+wc+uHGTAA/jk8jz6kCs5rEudSWWXYndg6LEKp1Rj+YC/C7tLlk9uW =tDdT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----