El vie, 08-06-2012 a las 12:16 -0700, Zac Medico escribió: > On 06/08/2012 01:38 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 12:33 -0700, Zac Medico escribió: > >> On 06/07/2012 12:24 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > >>> El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 12:09 -0700, Zac Medico escribió: > >>>> On 06/07/2012 12:00 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > >>>>> El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 19:44 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió: > >>>>>> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 20:43:54 +0200 > >>>>>> Pacho Ramos <pa...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >>>>>>>> I would prefer, as a workaround, allow reverse deps to RDEPEND on > >>>>>>>> glib:2.* instead. That way it would cover more cases when more than > >>>>>>>> two slots are available > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Well, per: > >>>>>>> http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/pms.git;a=commitdiff;h=f9f7729c047300e1924ad768a49c660e12c2f906;hp=b7750e67b4772c1064543defb7df6a556f09807b > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> looks like "*" usage for SLOTs would be allowed :), or I am > >>>>>>> misinterpreting it? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It's not a wildcard. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> But it looks like a valid usage for cases like glib vs. > >>>>> dbus-glib/gobject-introspection I have exposed as example, and also > >>>>> allows us to keep "SLOT" over "ABI_SLOT" (at least for this case, not > >>>>> sure about others I could be missing now...) > >>>> > >>>> The :* operator doesn't trigger any rebuilds though. Quoting the PMS > >>>> patch that you linked: > >>>> > >>>> * Indicates that any slot value is acceptable. In addition, for runtime > >>>> dependencies, indicates that the package will not break if the matched > >>>> package is uninstalled and replaced by a different matching package in a > >>>> different slot. > >>> > >>> I mean, use it in conjunction with ":=", one for rebuild and other to > >>> indicate any 2.x SLOT fits the "normal" RDEPEND (to not need to > >>> periodically update RDEPENDs or need to go back from :SLOT depends to > >>> old =category/package-version-* ways) > >>> > >>> Allowing that, we wouldn't need ABI_SLOT (at least to prevent this issue > >>> that arises with using only SLOTs for this) > >> > >> What you're talking about here is more similar to ABI_SLOT operator deps > >> than what was originally intended for SLOT operator deps. In other > >> words, anyone who is opposed to ABI_SLOT operator deps is likely to also > >> be opposed to your proposal. > > > > Oh :(, and what is the reason to want to prevent this behavior? Looks > > much simpler to me than needing to use ranges for dependencies or > > needing to create "compat" packages to hide the problem :| > > It's close enough to ABI_SLOT that it would make more sense just to use > ABI_SLOT because it's more flexible.
In that case, I think it's clear we need ABI_SLOT ;) The problem is how to document it in a way people agree with including it for eapi5 :|
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
