Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 19:33:38
Message-Id: 4FD2532B.4030506@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue by Pacho Ramos
1 On 06/08/2012 12:23 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
2 > El vie, 08-06-2012 a las 12:16 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
3 >> On 06/08/2012 01:38 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
4 >>> El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 12:33 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
5 >>>> On 06/07/2012 12:24 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
6 >>>>> El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 12:09 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
7 >>>>>> On 06/07/2012 12:00 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
8 >>>>>>> El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 19:44 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
9 >>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 20:43:54 +0200
10 >>>>>>>> Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote:
11 >>>>>>>>>> I would prefer, as a workaround, allow reverse deps to RDEPEND on
12 >>>>>>>>>> glib:2.* instead. That way it would cover more cases when more than
13 >>>>>>>>>> two slots are available
14 >>>>>>>>>
15 >>>>>>>>> Well, per:
16 >>>>>>>>> http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/pms.git;a=commitdiff;h=f9f7729c047300e1924ad768a49c660e12c2f906;hp=b7750e67b4772c1064543defb7df6a556f09807b
17 >>>>>>>>>
18 >>>>>>>>> looks like "*" usage for SLOTs would be allowed :), or I am
19 >>>>>>>>> misinterpreting it?
20 >>>>>>>>
21 >>>>>>>> It's not a wildcard.
22 >>>>>>>>
23 >>>>>>>
24 >>>>>>> But it looks like a valid usage for cases like glib vs.
25 >>>>>>> dbus-glib/gobject-introspection I have exposed as example, and also
26 >>>>>>> allows us to keep "SLOT" over "ABI_SLOT" (at least for this case, not
27 >>>>>>> sure about others I could be missing now...)
28 >>>>>>
29 >>>>>> The :* operator doesn't trigger any rebuilds though. Quoting the PMS
30 >>>>>> patch that you linked:
31 >>>>>>
32 >>>>>> * Indicates that any slot value is acceptable. In addition, for runtime
33 >>>>>> dependencies, indicates that the package will not break if the matched
34 >>>>>> package is uninstalled and replaced by a different matching package in a
35 >>>>>> different slot.
36 >>>>>
37 >>>>> I mean, use it in conjunction with ":=", one for rebuild and other to
38 >>>>> indicate any 2.x SLOT fits the "normal" RDEPEND (to not need to
39 >>>>> periodically update RDEPENDs or need to go back from :SLOT depends to
40 >>>>> old =category/package-version-* ways)
41 >>>>>
42 >>>>> Allowing that, we wouldn't need ABI_SLOT (at least to prevent this issue
43 >>>>> that arises with using only SLOTs for this)
44 >>>>
45 >>>> What you're talking about here is more similar to ABI_SLOT operator deps
46 >>>> than what was originally intended for SLOT operator deps. In other
47 >>>> words, anyone who is opposed to ABI_SLOT operator deps is likely to also
48 >>>> be opposed to your proposal.
49 >>>
50 >>> Oh :(, and what is the reason to want to prevent this behavior? Looks
51 >>> much simpler to me than needing to use ranges for dependencies or
52 >>> needing to create "compat" packages to hide the problem :|
53 >>
54 >> It's close enough to ABI_SLOT that it would make more sense just to use
55 >> ABI_SLOT because it's more flexible.
56 >
57 > In that case, I think it's clear we need ABI_SLOT ;) The problem is how
58 > to document it in a way people agree with including it for eapi5 :|
59
60 We can just write a specification for this one feature, and ask the
61 Council to approve it.
62 --
63 Thanks,
64 Zac

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>