Le dimanche 24 juin 2012 à 16:48 +0800, Ben de Groot a écrit : > On 24 June 2012 06:50, Gilles Dartiguelongue <e...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > Le samedi 23 juin 2012 à 18:30 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh a écrit : > >> > >> It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will treat "the gtk3 > >> version" or "the jruby version" as being newer versions of "the gtk2 > >> version" or "the ruby 1.8 version", just as it tries to bring in a > >> newer GCC and so on. > > > > I'm stopping my reading of this thread a minute to answer here. > > > > This is actually true when you think of it, gtk3 bindings are newer than > > gtk2. > > Now you're playing with semantics. In the case of -r200/-r300 we > are talking about the *exact same* $PV, but for some reason > the revision numbers are confusingly abused for something > that we normally use useflags for (toggling support for specific > toolkits for example). > > Please stop abusing revision numbers for something they are > not meant to convey. And please stop pushing developers to > drop perfectly legal usage of the gtk3 useflag. >
This is the same codebase, but they really are slotted libs (that happens to have the same $PV): * different include path * different pkgconfig files * different sonames * ... If the $PV wasn't the same, there would be no question about have a USE flag or not, the answer would be obvious to anyone. So please stop pretending this is a good case for USE flag. Now if this is the only case (lib with support for two gtk+ versions but slottable/slotted) that is causing a problem to anyone here, I propose we go with the simplest fix, have a new package name. That will remember me of debian packaging :) -- Gilles Dartiguelongue <e...@gentoo.org> Gentoo
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
