Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> writes: > A new slot of a package (which doesn't exist today) may or may not > work with any ebuild in the system. Should it be considered a best > practice then to specify || deps with all slots that are known to work > in the tree? Or should we just trust to luck and consider it > acceptable for maintainers to add new slots of commonly-used libs and > users and downstream maintainers can deal with the resulting breakage? > > Library maintainers don't seem to like dealing with that, so they just > stick new slots in an entirely new package, and then we end up with > all the || dependencies anyway and we make no use of the nice slot > syntax because it is prone to breakage. > > It seems like the current way we handle slots for dependencies works > just fine until somebody actually tries to introduce a new slot for a > package, and then a whole pile of assumptions comes crashing down.
How about defining a QA workflow for introducing a new slot of a library, such as "mask it and open a tracker bug until every individual reverse dependencies are checked"? Benda
