From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C78D13827E for ; Sun, 8 Dec 2013 17:26:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 14AC1E09B5; Sun, 8 Dec 2013 17:26:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FEA5E0995 for ; Sun, 8 Dec 2013 17:26:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.223] (154.174.16.95.dynamic.jazztel.es [95.16.174.154]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: pacho) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8110D33F4D6 for ; Sun, 8 Dec 2013 17:26:28 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1386523585.12112.5.camel@belkin5> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Dependencies default to accept any slot value acceptable (:*), can we default to :0 instead? From: Pacho Ramos To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2013 18:26:25 +0100 In-Reply-To: <201312081819.40449.dilfridge@gentoo.org> References: <20131208175612.2b8c7e38@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <201312081819.40449.dilfridge@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.8.5 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 1b30cf16-d64d-4970-9c90-a0d4ff55d790 X-Archives-Hash: f0085cef0931eac58b0fe4263130e15c El dom, 08-12-2013 a las 18:19 +0100, Andreas K. Huettel escribió: > Am Sonntag, 8. Dezember 2013, 17:56:12 schrieb Tom Wijsman: > > > > When our defaults force us down such path, that can't be good and it > > affects the quality of our Portage tree; so, this makes me wonder, can > > we change the default from :* to :0? What do you think? > > > > I see the point, but I have my doubts on retroactively changing things. > (It's a global change where we would have to be very very very careful > regarding interactions with eclasses and so on.) > > How about changing this in the next EAPI instead? > > E.g., in EAPI=6, if no slot dependency is given in a dependency specification, > default to :0 > > -- > > Andreas K. Huettel > Gentoo Linux developer > dilfridge@gentoo.org > http://www.akhuettel.de/ > Other option I have sometimes consider is to force people to specify the slot dependency on a newer eapi -> if a package is working for any slot, specify :*, if not, specify the slot that it needs. That way, this kind of problems would be much less frequent than currently