El mié, 06-06-2012 a las 01:54 -0700, Zac Medico escribió: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 06/06/2012 01:46 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > El mar, 05-06-2012 a las 19:18 -0700, Zac Medico escribió: > >> On 06/05/2012 05:51 PM, Michael Weber wrote: > >>> Is there any chance to detect this ZLIB_VERSION problem with > >>> revdep-rebuild (worst case: add a list of possibly broken > >>> packages with tests)? > >> > >> I'd suggest a special ebuild phase to check for ABI changes, like > >> the pre_pkg_preinst_abi_check phase suggested here: > >> > >> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=192319#c20 > > > > I guess, that phase would detect ABI change and package manager > > would know how to handle it by itself? > > Yeah, it would be like a warning system, do detect cases when the > SLOT/ABI_SLOT were not bumped when they should have been. The idea is > that the developer who's doing the version bump will see the warning > and bump the SLOT/ABI_SLOT before committing the ebuild. > - -- > Thanks, > Zac > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iEYEARECAAYFAk/PGt4ACgkQ/ejvha5XGaMt8QCffullYkU7EQXeE7TeUri4nQya > ysIAoMhPQT+rEZbxKNvMiX8qNOEndiM1 > =V7Tz > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >
And once we bump SLOT/ABI_SLOT, package manager would know about how to handle that situation and rebuild needed stuff? If we use SLOT only, I guess we would need to allow (or make more common) pulling multiple slot but all of them mutually exclusive no? I have no problem with that of course, but I thought it wasn't "desired" in general.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
