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 1ScL23-0005qJ-6g for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 18:32:35 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 17681E0899; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 18:32:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1319E077C for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 18:30:56 +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 A48AC64C58 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 18:30:55 +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: <20120606191505.4e011158@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> <1339005744.2706.47.camel@belkin4> <20120606191505.4e011158@googlemail.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-HUM+W9NYehAuBU8fVb6K" Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 20:30:52 +0200 Message-ID: <1339007452.2706.57.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: 7b5e3f53-d5a1-4937-b83e-79f71d0cc8d9 X-Archives-Hash: 88872172d2e25b894132f79a23b4cbd0 --=-HUM+W9NYehAuBU8fVb6K Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable El mi=C3=A9, 06-06-2012 a las 19:15 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribi=C3=B3: > On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 20:02:24 +0200 > Pacho Ramos wrote: > > 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. >=20 > Think of the users. I am thinking on them (well, I started this thread because I was thinking as a user). >=20 > > 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. >=20 > Well, you can do that if you really want... >=20 > > 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 > Noooooo. You'd use :=3D dependencies, possibly with a >=3D constraint. >=20 But, what would occur if we have three slots (for example gtk+), and app needs to RDEPEND on slot 2? How would we set it to use every 2.* SLOT and not >=3D2? Also, what is the reason to try to skip "ABI_SLOT" way? It would have some advantages, and would allow us to make ABI_SLOTs mutually exclusive by default (as most cases would need) instead of needing to move this "mutual exclussion" on every ebuild needing to use SLOTs for ABI bumps. It looks cleaner to me over being constraint to SLOT :| --=-HUM+W9NYehAuBU8fVb6K 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/PodwACgkQCaWpQKGI+9RHbwCfYxzQkN6dJCBwo7cyGe3Fxr9X I9sAmgMaMrFQ2kdWNS2ihYkhXE10/sdZ =fT/g -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-HUM+W9NYehAuBU8fVb6K--