On 12/09/2013 12:54 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > Creating a new SLOT is the most sane thing going forward; but, as the > default (:*) depends on any SLOT, this needs a half thousand commits to > fix up reverse dependencies. Thus, instead a new package is made. [1]
Pff. Lazy. > When our defaults force us down such path, that can't be good and it > affects the quality of our Portage tree; so, this makes me wonder, can > we change the default from :* to :0? What do you think? That just shifts the breakage to other people, who then have to do more work. > If we agree we do this; in order to change :* to :0, we need to change > the PMS to cover this change and implement it in the package managers. > > Before we do that, we need to evaluate how practical this is to apply. > While we are trying to fix the default behavior, what would changing > the default from :* to :0 break? > > One thing that directly comes to mind is that dependencies that have no > SLOT="0" ebuild present would need us to manually specify a specific > SLOT; given that this is a not so common situation, the amount of > commits needed here is low. And now you make updating a lot more fun, because slotted packages need to be explicitly changed if there's a new slot happening. Just to hide your own laziness. > Another thing that comes to mind is that we need to check what to do > with packages were the highest available version does not belong to > SLOT="0"; technically, restricting these to SLOT="0" will not cause > breakage, it might however cause some blockers. We'll have to look > closer into how we can alleviate this result. Yup, bad idea. 500 commits vs. making things more complicated for everyone ... srsly?
