On Sun, 8 Dec 2013 21:01:00 +0100 Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, 8 Dec 2013, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > Sure it does - it defaults to :* when :* was never specified. I > > don't see how defaulting to :0= is a "policy" any more than :* is. > > Defaulting to :* is just the long term behaviour from EAPIs 0 to 4 > when no slot operator was specified. Which section in the PMS is this specified? > This is consistent with what we haved for versioned dependencies. > When you don't specify a version, then all versions are good. Good idea. > Similarly, when you don't specify a slot, then all slots are good. Not so good idea; because if all slot would be good by default, then why have slots in the first place? Are we using SLOT right at all? > Our rules of slot/subslot dependencies and slot operators are just > complicated enough, so I really would dislike complicating them even > more by having an EAPI dependent default. Is it complicated? 1. Dev changes to EAPI 6 on a revision or version bump. 2. Dev tests the ebuild. 2.a. It works; the ebuild defaults to depend on :0=. 2.b. It breaks, dev checks dependency; the ebuild now depends on :2=. 3. Dev commits. The developer needs to be aware of new PMS versions; thus, given that news is brought out about this the developer is aware of the change. > In addition, from a package > manager view there is nothing special at all about slot 0, so there's > no reason to prefer it over other values. In reality, we use it in a special way; it's time to make the resources that we use reflect that and stop relying on unspecified behavior. (Or change reality to match our resources; though, doing thousand of commits compared to changing our resources might not be the way to go.) -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
