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 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1GQPEx-0002oH-Bw for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 21 Sep 2006 14:09:23 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with SMTP id k8LE8TGv004271; Thu, 21 Sep 2006 14:08:29 GMT Received: from sccrmhc11.comcast.net (sccrmhc11.comcast.net [204.127.200.81]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k8LE4eej031823 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2006 14:04:40 GMT Received: from seldon (c-24-21-135-117.hsd1.or.comcast.net[24.21.135.117]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc11) with SMTP id <2006092114043901100ag044e>; Thu, 21 Sep 2006 14:04:39 +0000 Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 07:04:38 -0700 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC about another *DEPEND variable Message-ID: <20060921140438.GD30105@seldon> References: <45126B07.6030403@gentoo.org> <451279D3.9020605@gentoo.org> <20060921115916.GB30105@seldon> <200609210952.27835.vapier@gentoo.org> 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; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="pZs/OQEoSSbxGlYw" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200609210952.27835.vapier@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Archives-Salt: 1ca6fd7f-1ecf-4cab-8495-fe59f8c6ab08 X-Archives-Hash: d871076e492076e328809fe800fab3d8 --pZs/OQEoSSbxGlYw Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 09:52:27AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Thursday 21 September 2006 07:59, Brian Harring wrote: > > Why have the explicit var? Because 0.9.7a through 0.9.7c may all be > > compatible, but 0.9.7d isn't. If you force an automatic algo that > > tries to (effectively) guess, you get a lot of rebuilds through a,b,c, > > end result being folks likely update less because it becomes a bigger > > pain in the ass. >=20 > if it isnt compatible then it shouldnt have the same SONAME, simple as=20 > that ... that is after all the point of encoding the ABI version number i= nto=20 > the SONAME >=20 > forcing devs to maintain a manual var which is basically duplicating the= =20 > SONAME smells like maintenance nightmare I agree; while I'm labeling it ABI, includes both bad soname handling=20 and seperate sonames. Re: forcing devs... the request was to fold revdep-rebuild into=20 resolution; in other words, 3 options 1) situation gets ignored, stays as is 2) all packages are somehow fixed (ultra restrictive deps) to never=20 require revdep-rebuild 3) revdep-rebulid capabilities get inline into resolution. Feel free to point out a 4th option if I'm missing it, but for the=20 request, that's what exists afaict; meanwhile, stating that pkgs are=20 being stupid, while true, doesn't actually solve the issue :) ~harring --pZs/OQEoSSbxGlYw Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFEpv2siLx3HvNzgcRAnfRAJ96N0C4d2yQE2UDdvycftJNffP3gQCg2ZGp nFgaWnJdcvyVN6GcsmKbADY= =8FyZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --pZs/OQEoSSbxGlYw-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list