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 1Scgwt-0001Ya-I6 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 07 Jun 2012 17:56:43 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 458D6E0683; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 17:56:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4E32E0517 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 17:55:38 +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 877FA1B400B for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 17:55:24 +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: <20120607184008.09aca0fe@googlemail.com> References: <4FCF2012.3040500@gentoo.org> <1338976106.2706.36.camel@belkin4> <20120606181650.0c727f18@googlemail.com> <1339005744.2706.47.camel@belkin4> <20120606191505.4e011158@googlemail.com> <1339007452.2706.57.camel@belkin4> <20120606193348.67b83427@googlemail.com> <1339010165.2706.62.camel@belkin4> <20120606202340.6c95711f@googlemail.com> <4FCFF945.1070804@gentoo.org> <20120607082409.GB3352@localhost.google.com> <4FD0DA34.8080409@gentoo.org> <20120607184008.09aca0fe@googlemail.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-XROmP9NjFeVhQIKGrrRV" Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 19:55:16 +0200 Message-ID: <1339091716.3014.16.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: d18cd76f-83d4-42e5-af82-479b312b74f3 X-Archives-Hash: 8917dc534a4c57fa6b30a002e9a09c7a --=-XROmP9NjFeVhQIKGrrRV Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 18:40 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribi=C3=B3: > On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:43:32 -0700 > Zac Medico wrote: > > I can imagine that ABI_SLOT operator deps will be a lot more popular > > than SLOT operator deps, since ABI_SLOT operator deps will accommodate > > the common practice of allowing ABI changes within a particular SLOT. >=20 > You're missing out on a brilliant opportunity to encourage developers > put in a bit more work to save users a huge amount of pain here. >=20 Won't be possible to encourage developers to make that "bit" more work when that work is not so "bit". Of course, I understand there are probably some valid cases when situation can (and should) be improved, but I still fail to see the advantage of allowing parallel installation for glib, xorg-server... taking care their reverse dependencies simply need a rebuild to work with latest ABIs and, then, users should anyway need to remove that old slots once reverse deps are rebuilt against latest slot as we wouldn't support setups where people is lazy to rebuild and have, for example, x11 drivers built against xorg-server-1.9.5-r1 even having 1.11.2-r2 installed in parallel. --=-XROmP9NjFeVhQIKGrrRV 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/Q6wQACgkQCaWpQKGI+9ReXgCfbYtIeNi82F38GgiOy2YWvtoC xA8An1TGufkq5AuigXfCktbd9UG0EMu2 =095Y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-XROmP9NjFeVhQIKGrrRV--