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 1SchJ8-0006UV-KX for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 07 Jun 2012 18:19:42 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 49FEAE07AD; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 18:18:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51061E07A8 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 18:16:39 +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 381A71B4012 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 18:16:37 +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: <4FD0ECED.10201@gentoo.org> 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> <4FD0ECED.10201@gentoo.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-6g45E3YCAgEWkQWsClPh" Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 20:16:35 +0200 Message-ID: <1339092995.3014.23.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: 1fb65c60-1d1d-4a2a-8aa5-7bfd606a109c X-Archives-Hash: 8fc16cb65d89e2a620edb6be2c948068 --=-6g45E3YCAgEWkQWsClPh Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 11:03 -0700, Zac Medico escribi=C3=B3: > On 06/07/2012 10:40 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > 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 > What about cases like the dbus-glib and glib:2 dependency, where it's > just too much trouble to use SLOT operator deps? Wouldn't it be better > to have a little flexibility, so that we can accommodate more packages? >=20 > As a workaround for SLOT operator deps, I suppose that glib:1 could be > split into a separate glib-legacy package, in order to facilitate the > use of SLOT operator dependencies in dbus-glib. That way, it would be > easy to match glib-2.x and not have to worry about trying not to match > glib-1.x. I would prefer, as a workaround, allow reverse deps to RDEPEND on glib:2.* instead. That way it would cover more cases when more than two slots are available --=-6g45E3YCAgEWkQWsClPh 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/Q8AMACgkQCaWpQKGI+9RAhQCdFEHY3M0sNddd0ZCGhdpYVgCr 9wEAmwaFGHLQn/22uA0Pg5ALGp+dQoRv =h8xy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-6g45E3YCAgEWkQWsClPh--