From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1ScBcu-0003cq-06 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 08:30:00 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 909A1E0642; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 08:29:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E993E061F for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 08:28:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.204] (23.155.16.95.dynamic.jazztel.es [95.16.155.23]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: pacho) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 659391B402C for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 08:28:36 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue From: Pacho Ramos To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <4FCE913C.5060104@gentoo.org> References: <1338845178.23212.1.camel@belkin4> <4FCDFF18.3080600@gentoo.org> <1338903062.21833.7.camel@belkin4> <4FCE913C.5060104@gentoo.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-2+TJ3K2ZAECzzEfJpYsa" Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 10:28:33 +0200 Message-ID: <1338971313.2706.4.camel@belkin4> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.3 X-Archives-Salt: 7c0d3ee4-8623-4d2d-8fe0-0d1236807e85 X-Archives-Hash: 6b533bd9ed1168be5c04a6ecbe819ad2 --=-2+TJ3K2ZAECzzEfJpYsa Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable El mar, 05-06-2012 a las 16:07 -0700, Zac Medico escribi=C3=B3: > On 06/05/2012 06:31 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > El mar, 05-06-2012 a las 08:44 -0400, Aaron W. Swenson escribi=C3=B3: > >> The ideal solution is for the Ebuild to instruct the PMS to rebuild > >> the dependent packages. > >> > >> We can have a variable called REBUILD. All packages that would need to > >> be rebuilt can be listed in it. Only those packages that are installed > >> would be built. The actual list of the packages to be rebuilt would be > >> determined at dependency checking time. That way, the user can approve > >> the rebuild of the packages. > >=20 > > We all know what would be the "ideal solution", the problem is how to > > implement it (and how many years we need to wait to get it working). >=20 > This REBUILD variable is the first idea that pops into the head of > anyone who's never worked on a dependency resolver before. It's > backwards because it requires a package to have knowledge of *all* of > its reverse dependencies, and it should not need to know about *any* of > them. >=20 > The "SLOT operator" dependencies that Ciaran has been advocating are > very close to a good solution. However, if we want it to work with > unslotted packages, then we need to introduce a separate ABI_SLOT > variable as discussed here: >=20 > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D192319#c18 >=20 > It's really no more difficult to do than "SLOT operator" dependencies, > it's more flexible, and we can do it in EAPI 5. In that case, I obviously wouldn't have any problem with that approach (it sound even better :)). Is there any place where I could get a bit more documentation about how this "SLOT operator" way would work? For example, how would work for rebuilding x11 drivers after updating xorg or rebuilding gobject-introspection after major glib update...=20 Thanks a lot for the info :) --=-2+TJ3K2ZAECzzEfJpYsa Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk/PFLEACgkQCaWpQKGI+9REXgCeOHXSYOBZ4MaPBLmx0O8RB3/T hmsAn0K1UsgBaUKCFFDrRg63xCARc71A =BYu5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-2+TJ3K2ZAECzzEfJpYsa--