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 1ScKb0-0001VO-EX for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 18:04:38 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1C1E0E0793; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 18:03:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21968E0738 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 18:02:30 +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 B32E41B4004 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 18:02:28 +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: <20120606181650.0c727f18@googlemail.com> References: <1338845178.23212.1.camel@belkin4> <4FCDFF18.3080600@gentoo.org> <1338903062.21833.7.camel@belkin4> <4FCE913C.5060104@gentoo.org> <1338971313.2706.4.camel@belkin4> <4FCF2012.3040500@gentoo.org> <1338976106.2706.36.camel@belkin4> <20120606181650.0c727f18@googlemail.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-o0cif4M9WUJh4ch9yLm4" Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 20:02:24 +0200 Message-ID: <1339005744.2706.47.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: 2d078703-9902-4e5d-9c82-43a896174098 X-Archives-Hash: 9f2d42da278f4815f2bfe57bfc5c2de5 --=-o0cif4M9WUJh4ch9yLm4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable El mi=C3=A9, 06-06-2012 a las 18:16 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribi=C3=B3: > On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:48:26 +0200 > Pacho Ramos wrote: > > That looks nice, only two notes: > > - Looks like would be more sense on distinguish between "SLOT" and > > ABI_SLOT, for example: > > * dbus-glib would rdepend on glib:2 > > * if glib:2 abi changes, we would pull a ABI_SLOT=3D"2.32" > > inside glib-2 ebuild > > * dbus-glib rdepending on glib:=3D2 would get rebuilt > > If we would use "SLOT" for all the cases, how would we handle it? I > > mean, glib slot would be bumped to "2.32" and dbus-glib ebuilds > > updated to rdepend on every new slot? Or would package managers > > distinct between "versions" inside the same SLOT variable? >=20 > You'd have a slot per ABI, and be encouraged to allow multiple versions > of glib to be installed in parallel. If you really couldn't do that > (and you should think very carefully before saying you can't, since > this directly affects users in a huge way), you can make the slots > block each other. Probably other gnome team could reply this better than me, but I don't think slotting every glib-2 due ABI changes deserves the huge effort. Also, we want people to rebuild them against, for example, glib-2.32 ABI, not to keep glib-2.30 and 2.32 installed in parallel and some packages built against 2.30 and others against 2.32. Also, how could this be handled in dbus-glib side? I mean, would we need to update dbus-glib update from RDEPENDing on glib:2.30 to glib:2.32? :O >=20 > > - What would occur with packages forced to use eapi0 due backwards > > compat? We could probably deprecate eapis older than 5 to allow all > > the tree be consistent with this rebuilds forcing, but no idea what > > to do with system packages still needing to use eapi0 and maybe > > changing their ABI too :/ >=20 > The situation for older packages remains the same. >=20 Maybe we have a third option that could allow us to not use ABI_SLOT if you prefer: - eapi5 could allow the usage of depending on multiple slots, for example, dbus-glib would RDEPEND on dev-libs/glib:2.*:=3D Then, we would have dev-libs/glib:2.30 and dev-libs/glib:2.32, both mutually exclusive but ebuilds RDEPENDing on them not needing to be updated on every abi bump due them really working for both ABIs. - Package managers would still rebuild all apps with that ":=3D" syntax - We would be able to skip ABI_SLOT needing - If a package is RDEPENDing on an old eapi0 package, that package could still use SLOT=3D"2.32" or "2.30" and eapi5 ebuild rdepending on it still behaving in the same way. --=-o0cif4M9WUJh4ch9yLm4 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/PmzAACgkQCaWpQKGI+9Sj9ACfcNsYTpHJW7AhXdHh+5PPWq+M HrcAnjesZEchU9lF8i1fo8imC7DGgQJf =VAj2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-o0cif4M9WUJh4ch9yLm4--