On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Tom Wijsman <tom...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > Given that the retroactive change I suggest causes a lot of complexity; > changing it on the next EAPI indeed sounds like one way to go, the > alternative is to make it a suggestive guideline or policy and cover > it as a QA check in repoman. > > That QA check could throw a warning when a dependency has no slot.
I think we're better off with defaulting to slot 0 rather than erroring/warning if no slot is specified. Otherwise we're basically going to have to modify every ebuild in the tree to add the :0 (unless there is no warning when only slot 0 exists, but then another slot could be added at any time and what is the behavior then?). Or we could do both - we could define EAPI 6 as having :0 be the default slot behavior, and we could have repoman offer soft warnings on earlier EAPIs if there is no explicit slot. (I'd even suggest making the default :0= except that there is no way to override that as we defined not depending on a subslot as the absence of any operator and not a different operator that is simply defaulted.) Rich
