| 1 |
On 04-09-2012 12:37:17 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
> * Slot operator dependencies |
| 3 |
> PMS wording: <http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/pms.git;a=commit;h=f9f7729c047300e1924ad768a49c660e12c2f906> |
| 4 |
> Portage patch: <http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/portage.git;a=commit;h=e4ba8f36e6a4624f4fec61c7ce8bed0e3bd2fa01> |
| 5 |
> Bug: <https://bugs.gentoo.org/229521> |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
The Portage patch doesn't match the PMS patch or the bug report. The |
| 8 |
Portage patch refers to slot_abi, not slot operator dependencies. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
While Bug and PMS wording seem to be included in the Portage patch, the |
| 11 |
Portage patch appears to do much more, overloading SLOT with some ABI |
| 12 |
information, which Bug and PMS do NOT mention. Instead, they assume |
| 13 |
SLOT == ABI, probably as per Gentoo policy. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
- the '/' delimiter in SLOT value is NOT mentioned in PMS |
| 16 |
- PMS writes colon is immediately followed by '*' or '=' |
| 17 |
- Portage docs define a missing sub-slot to be implicitly '0', but when |
| 18 |
recording a slot dependency using '=', this default equals the value |
| 19 |
of SLOT |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I'm not sure about sub-slot, and I can't find any case arguing in favour |
| 22 |
of this feature. Bug #424429 doesn't tell much more than how to use the |
| 23 |
experimental version with an overlay. |
| 24 |
Given that the sub-slot feature appears to be behind a special testing |
| 25 |
EAPI now, I think it would be fair to at least mention explicitly that |
| 26 |
sub-slot is not going to be part of EAPI5 (or this very point) as is. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 31 |
Gentoo on a different level |
Archives