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 1Sd4nT-00008M-Ce for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 19:24:35 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 13459E07E6; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 19:24:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37894E082D for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 19:23:38 +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 B38C31B402D for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 19:23:36 +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: <4FD24F73.8000601@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> <1339144721.4179.1.camel@belkin4> <4FD24F73.8000601@gentoo.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-PJ5PIdek3Q8QPEaN5osD" Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 21:23:32 +0200 Message-ID: <1339183412.4179.30.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: 13d5407a-120b-4834-bfd9-3d84c84627dc X-Archives-Hash: cf705793f9a8c67e82c0348f2dfa26b1 --=-PJ5PIdek3Q8QPEaN5osD Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable El vie, 08-06-2012 a las 12:16 -0700, Zac Medico escribi=C3=B3: > On 06/08/2012 01:38 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > 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 o= n > >>>>>>>> glib:2.* instead. That way it would cover more cases when more t= han > >>>>>>>> two slots are available > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Well, per: > >>>>>>> http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=3Dproj/pms.git;a=3Dcommi= tdiff;h=3Df9f7729c047300e1924ad768a49c660e12c2f906;hp=3Db7750e67b4772c10645= 43defb7df6a556f09807b > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 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, n= ot > >>>>> 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 runt= ime > >>>> dependencies, indicates that the package will not break if the match= ed > >>>> package is uninstalled and replaced by a different matching package = in a > >>>> different slot. > >>> > >>> 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) > >>> > >>> Allowing that, we wouldn't need ABI_SLOT (at least to prevent this is= sue > >>> that arises with using only SLOTs for this) > >> > >> What you're talking about here is more similar to ABI_SLOT operator de= ps > >> than what was originally intended for SLOT operator deps. In other > >> words, anyone who is opposed to ABI_SLOT operator deps is likely to al= so > >> be opposed to your proposal. > >=20 > > 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 :| >=20 > It's close enough to ABI_SLOT that it would make more sense just to use > ABI_SLOT because it's more flexible. In that case, I think it's clear we need ABI_SLOT ;) The problem is how to document it in a way people agree with including it for eapi5 :| --=-PJ5PIdek3Q8QPEaN5osD 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/SUTQACgkQCaWpQKGI+9SL5QCfWTr0dCuuTpA+cw4881AaPpCq yvYAnR0gRZXK/lZWqVkd3E0CJUwcCiMb =gJBl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-PJ5PIdek3Q8QPEaN5osD--