On Mon, 5 Aug 2013 18:49:49 -0400 Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > Again, symbols have nothing to do here. Since you have poor control on > overlays and absolutely zero control on locally built packages, the > only sane assumption is that all symbols are used.
And that answers your question as to why the spec says "may". > > That's covered by the spec. Basically, ignoring many of the > > complications that make dependency resolution such a pain, for a > > dependency to be usable, all its dependencies must be usable. > > > > The "may" there is simply there to avoid prohibiting developers from > > doing a subslot bump when it could turn out not to be necessary > > after all. > > And then when a package has various libraries, one being very unstable > abi-wise and the others stable, it seems much more sane not to := > depend on said package if you only use the stable ones when the > subslot clearly refers to the unstable abi library. But that leads to breakage when the "stable" ABI changes. It's better to avoid breakage than it is to require the odd extra recompile. > > > Supposing we are dealing with shared libraries only, how is that > > > an improvement over preserve-libs ? > > > > We aren't dealing with shared libraries only. Even if we were, a) > > shared libraries have dependencies upon things that are not shared > > libraries, like text files, and b) subslots don't facilitate using > > an old, insecure shared library to generate content. > > I don't see how current subslots improve a) With subslots, the developer specifies dependencies. With fix-linkage, the package mangler has to guess based upon very incomplete information. > and b) is just a matter of UI defaults... No, b) doesn't happen with correctly done subslots. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
