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 1ScujU-0007ab-8s for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:39:48 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9A02EE05DB; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 08:39:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51471E072D for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 08:38:46 +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 2AA4A1B401E for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 08:38:44 +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: <4FD101EC.7080306@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> <1339092995.3014.23.camel@belkin4> <1339094634.3014.24.camel@belkin4> <20120607194448.1577119e@googlemail.com> <1339095641.3014.26.camel@belkin4> <4FD0FC81.9070701@gentoo.org> <1339097086.3014.28.camel@belkin4> <4FD101EC.7080306@gentoo.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-awJ0hnetzvbtZYTAT0O5" Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 10:38:41 +0200 Message-ID: <1339144721.4179.1.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: cc48516d-779c-4ac7-812d-95f8e97480a5 X-Archives-Hash: 97bfbb95ee57796436fa98e628c8b9fa --=-awJ0hnetzvbtZYTAT0O5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 12:33 -0700, Zac Medico escribi=C3=B3: > On 06/07/2012 12:24 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 12:09 -0700, Zac Medico escribi=C3=B3: > >> On 06/07/2012 12:00 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > >>> El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 19:44 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribi=C3=B3: > >>>> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 20:43:54 +0200 > >>>> Pacho Ramos wrote: > >>>>>> I would prefer, as a workaround, allow reverse deps to RDEPEND on > >>>>>> glib:2.* instead. That way it would cover more cases when more tha= n > >>>>>> two slots are available > >>>>> > >>>>> Well, per: > >>>>> http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=3Dproj/pms.git;a=3Dcommitd= iff;h=3Df9f7729c047300e1924ad768a49c660e12c2f906;hp=3Db7750e67b4772c1064543= defb7df6a556f09807b > >>>>> > >>>>> looks like "*" usage for SLOTs would be allowed :), or I am > >>>>> misinterpreting it? > >>>> > >>>> It's not a wildcard. > >>>> > >>> > >>> But it looks like a valid usage for cases like glib vs. > >>> dbus-glib/gobject-introspection I have exposed as example, and also > >>> allows us to keep "SLOT" over "ABI_SLOT" (at least for this case, not > >>> sure about others I could be missing now...) > >> > >> The :* operator doesn't trigger any rebuilds though. Quoting the PMS > >> patch that you linked: > >> > >> * Indicates that any slot value is acceptable. In addition, for runtim= e > >> dependencies, indicates that the package will not break if the matched > >> package is uninstalled and replaced by a different matching package in= a > >> different slot. > >=20 > > I mean, use it in conjunction with ":=3D", one for rebuild and other to > > indicate any 2.x SLOT fits the "normal" RDEPEND (to not need to > > periodically update RDEPENDs or need to go back from :SLOT depends to > > old =3Dcategory/package-version-* ways) > >=20 > > Allowing that, we wouldn't need ABI_SLOT (at least to prevent this issu= e > > that arises with using only SLOTs for this) >=20 > What you're talking about here is more similar to ABI_SLOT operator deps > than what was originally intended for SLOT operator deps. In other > words, anyone who is opposed to ABI_SLOT operator deps is likely to also > be opposed to your proposal. Oh :(, and what is the reason to want to prevent this behavior? Looks much simpler to me than needing to use ranges for dependencies or needing to create "compat" packages to hide the problem :| --=-awJ0hnetzvbtZYTAT0O5 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/RuhEACgkQCaWpQKGI+9QiZQCeL/qxWc1zQLiylA7at7qPx2eY 7FYAnRZPwbURqsKItM9QzndqRWBp9f19 =8S3Y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-awJ0hnetzvbtZYTAT0O5--