El mié, 06-06-2012 a las 02:17 -0700, Zac Medico escribió: > On 06/06/2012 01:28 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > El mar, 05-06-2012 a las 16:07 -0700, Zac Medico escribió: > >> The "SLOT operator" dependencies that Ciaran has been advocating are > >> very close to a good solution. However, if we want it to work with > >> unslotted packages, then we need to introduce a separate ABI_SLOT > >> variable as discussed here: > >> > >> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=192319#c18 > >> > >> It's really no more difficult to do than "SLOT operator" dependencies, > >> it's more flexible, and we can do it in EAPI 5. > > > > In that case, I obviously wouldn't have any problem with that approach > > (it sound even better :)). Is there any place where I could get a bit > > more documentation about how this "SLOT operator" way would work? For > > example, how would work for rebuilding x11 drivers after updating xorg > > or rebuilding gobject-introspection after major glib update... > > Whenever you have an ABI change, the developer doing the version bump > needs to increment the SLOT (or ABI_SLOT if we use a separate variable) > in the package. Packages that depend on the package with the ABI change > (reverse dependencies) append a := operator to their dependency atoms, > indicating that they are locked to the ABI of the SLOT that they are > built against. The package manager translates the := operators into a > dependencies on specific SLOTs at build time, so that when you update > your system next time, it can use this information to trigger rebuilds > automatically when necessary.
That looks nice, only two notes:
- Looks like would be more sense on distinguish between "SLOT" and
ABI_SLOT, for example:
* dbus-glib would rdepend on glib:2
* if glib:2 abi changes, we would pull a ABI_SLOT="2.32" inside glib-2
ebuild
* dbus-glib rdepending on glib:=2 would get rebuilt
If we would use "SLOT" for all the cases, how would we handle it? I
mean, glib slot would be bumped to "2.32" and dbus-glib ebuilds updated
to rdepend on every new slot? Or would package managers distinct between
"versions" inside the same SLOT variable?
- What would occur with packages forced to use eapi0 due backwards
compat? We could probably deprecate eapis older than 5 to allow all the
tree be consistent with this rebuilds forcing, but no idea what to do
with system packages still needing to use eapi0 and maybe changing their
ABI too :/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
