| 1 |
Seems I was to quick with the previous mail. |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On 04-09-2012 12:37:17 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 4 |
> * Sub-slots |
| 5 |
> PMS wording: <http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/pms.git;a=commit;h=5d6749ac9e5ddc5b1daaad7737b65fa81c6ece47> |
| 6 |
> Portage patch: <http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/portage.git;a=commit;h=e4ba8f36e6a4624f4fec61c7ce8bed0e3bd2fa01> |
| 7 |
> Bug: <https://bugs.gentoo.org/424429> |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Any pointers where we can find the argumentation what this is useful |
| 10 |
for? PMS is very terse when it writes: |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
The sub-slot is used to represent cases in which an upgrade to a new |
| 13 |
version of a package with a different sub-slot may require dependent |
| 14 |
packages to be rebuilt. When the sub-slot part is omitted from the |
| 15 |
SLOT definition, the package is considered to have an implicit |
| 16 |
sub-slot which is equal to the regular slot. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
While this is an inconsistency, as pointed out in previous email, it is |
| 19 |
unclear to me how this feature distinguishes from the general slot |
| 20 |
operator dependencies, which appears to achieve the same. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
My impression here is that this tries to work around a problem where |
| 23 |
SLOT != ABI. If (and that is what I assume here) the sub-slot is used |
| 24 |
to have a major/minor-like matching criteria, it would've been more |
| 25 |
native to use dev-libs/glib:2.* and a sole slot of "2.30". |
| 26 |
In the end, it seems to be necessary to identify the various cases of |
| 27 |
breakage using versioned ELF objects, based on libtool's versioning |
| 28 |
rules, and use those as starting point to backup this feature. (Taking |
| 29 |
special care for downgrading.) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 34 |
Gentoo on a different level |
Archives