| 1 |
El dom, 08-12-2013 a las 18:19 +0100, Andreas K. Huettel escribió: |
| 2 |
> Am Sonntag, 8. Dezember 2013, 17:56:12 schrieb Tom Wijsman: |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > When our defaults force us down such path, that can't be good and it |
| 5 |
> > affects the quality of our Portage tree; so, this makes me wonder, can |
| 6 |
> > we change the default from :* to :0? What do you think? |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I see the point, but I have my doubts on retroactively changing things. |
| 10 |
> (It's a global change where we would have to be very very very careful |
| 11 |
> regarding interactions with eclasses and so on.) |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> How about changing this in the next EAPI instead? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> E.g., in EAPI=6, if no slot dependency is given in a dependency specification, |
| 16 |
> default to :0 |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> -- |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Andreas K. Huettel |
| 21 |
> Gentoo Linux developer |
| 22 |
> dilfridge@g.o |
| 23 |
> http://www.akhuettel.de/ |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Other option I have sometimes consider is to force people to specify the |
| 27 |
slot dependency on a newer eapi -> if a package is working for any slot, |
| 28 |
specify :*, if not, specify the slot that it needs. That way, this kind |
| 29 |
of problems would be much less frequent than currently |
Archives