Re: [gentoo-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue

[Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3615 bytes --]

El vie, 08-06-2012 a las 12:31 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
> On 06/08/2012 12:23 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > El vie, 08-06-2012 a las 12:16 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
> >> On 06/08/2012 01:38 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> >>> El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 12:33 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
> >>>> On 06/07/2012 12:24 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> >>>>> El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 12:09 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
> >>>>>> On 06/07/2012 12:00 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> >>>>>>> El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 19:44 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 20:43:54 +0200
> >>>>>>>> Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> 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 than
> >>>>>>>>>> two slots are available
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Well, per:
> >>>>>>>>> http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/pms.git;a=commitdiff;h=f9f7729c047300e1924ad768a49c660e12c2f906;hp=b7750e67b4772c1064543defb7df6a556f09807b
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 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 runtime
> >>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I mean, use it in conjunction with ":=", 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 =category/package-version-* ways)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Allowing that, we wouldn't need ABI_SLOT (at least to prevent this issue
> >>>>> that arises with using only SLOTs for this)
> >>>>
> >>>> 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 :|
> >>
> >> 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 :|
> 
> We can just write a specification for this one feature, and ask the
> Council to approve it.

That would be nice, if you remember, I started with "elog/ecommand
splitting solution" to try to get this long standing issue solved "soon"
and, since looks like each eapi takes more than a year to complete, I
would really prefer to see it included in eapi5, specially after seeing
that this "ABI_SLOT" idea was suggested years ago but the issue stalled
later multiple times

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]