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 1Sdnf2-0006S1-2V for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 19:18:52 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 42371E0462; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 19:18:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AE1AE035C for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 19:17:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.33] (103.red-80-28-183.adsl.static.ccgg.telefonica.net [80.28.183.103]) (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 303EA1B4011 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 19:17:49 +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: <20120610132555.74bded8c@googlemail.com> References: <4FCF2012.3040500@gentoo.org> <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> <1339183412.4179.30.camel@belkin4> <4FD2532B.4030506@gentoo.org> <20120609131542.14ac5081@googlemail.com> <4FD3B859.9050903@gentoo.org> <20120610132555.74bded8c@googlemail.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-vkqHERYGkJX6GV+8cyDw" Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 21:17:44 +0200 Message-ID: <1339355864.2867.0.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: 3f2a23fe-b53e-4ef9-a8ec-ef4dea0cceb6 X-Archives-Hash: 22f1e5fce09e3d6aad1ea30248dab26c --=-vkqHERYGkJX6GV+8cyDw Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable El dom, 10-06-2012 a las 13:25 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribi=C3=B3: > On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 13:55:53 -0700 > Zac Medico wrote: > > A dependency atom will have optional SLOT and ABI_SLOT parts. Using > > the dbus-glib depedency on glib:2 as an example [1], the dbus-glib > > dependency will be expressed with an atom such as dev-libs/glib:2:=3D > > and the package manager will translate that atom to > > dev-libs/glib:2:=3D2.32 at build time. So, ':' is always used to > > distinguish SLOT deps, and ':=3D' is always used to distinguish > > ABI_SLOT deps. Is that syntax good? >=20 > Here's a nicer syntax: no ABI_SLOT variable, and SLOT=3D"2/2.32". Then yo= u > can do explicit :2/2.32 dependencies if you like, or :2 (which would > match SLOT=3D"2" or SLOT=3D"2/anything"), or :2=3D (which gets rewritten > to :2/2.32=3D) or :2*. If an ebuild does SLOT=3D"2", it's treated as 2/2. >=20 Looks nice to me :) --=-vkqHERYGkJX6GV+8cyDw 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/U8tgACgkQCaWpQKGI+9TZwQCghgmb8uQSO4jAi/e4juAdpLjm vwEAnjnuct+qr3lVHE4ry1PH1OnzCf8e =+U9l -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-vkqHERYGkJX6GV+8cyDw--