From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1Er2om-0002Kx-2v for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 00:35:56 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id jBR0ZCri010258; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 00:35:12 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id jBR0XKLq024028 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 00:33:20 GMT Received: from d134058.adsl.hansenet.de ([80.171.134.58] helo=iglu.bnet.local) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.54) id 1Er2mG-0006x9-1q for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 00:33:20 +0000 From: Carsten Lohrke To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Multiple Repo Support Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 01:33:13 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9 References: <43A235AD.6030604@leetworks.com> <200512262109.39704.carlo@gentoo.org> <20051226202833.4c5fe9f9@snowdrop.home> In-Reply-To: <20051226202833.4c5fe9f9@snowdrop.home> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1912421.Scudt1YcL4"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200512270133.19909.carlo@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 99d5e49e-49c5-4ef5-83ab-128fabd40123 X-Archives-Hash: a56d557bd987c565d6ccdd18f877a72e --nextPart1912421.Scudt1YcL4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Monday 26 December 2005 21:28, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > If they're purely in DEPEND, that one isn't even an incompatability. Right. But it's not that unlikely to see such a corner case sooner or later= =20 and it would be good if Portage catches it, instead spitting out a weird=20 message, leaving the root of the issue in the dark. Should be also simple t= o=20 write a test case. > Well, any library that changes ABI should use a different SLOT for each > revision. So SLOT depends should be able to replace the need for =3D and > ~ and < and <=3D dependencies entirely. Which is a good thing, since > those atoms make dependency resolution a general-case unsolvable > problem. The problem is not the SLOT change, but to build "foo" depending on "bar"=20 against KDE X, while bar is built against KDE Y. "foo" and "bar" support al= l=20 slotted KDE versions, but they need to be build against the same one. You=20 simply cannot express this via slot dependencies, so this feature is useles= s=20 for KDE packages.=20 > The existing syntax is just as extensible. Up the EABI revision, and > start adding new syntax as needed. EAPI has nothing to do with the consistency of the syntax. Getting it once= =20 right, is what you usually call for. I prefer clean data structures. Carsten --nextPart1912421.Scudt1YcL4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2-ecc0.1.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBDsIvPVwbzmvGLSW8RAq75AJwOjeM1zqA5VDtSyZxU/esBstlplACght7W q7Uc4KNjDPJ+ap4CrWdZ5rM= =c82G -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1912421.Scudt1YcL4-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list