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 1ScY1a-0004TE-AX for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 07 Jun 2012 08:24:58 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0EF0DE065E; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 08:24:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pb0-f53.google.com (mail-pb0-f53.google.com [209.85.160.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA1D2E05FA for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 08:23:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pbbrr13 with SMTP id rr13so862268pbb.40 for ; Thu, 07 Jun 2012 01:23:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=zw6MvJX6+LI+nGAnDj9QkHEsbx6wmSwPwhwlRgs2PUA=; b=GXEmjqm2oRxx1iUDRQNp8EnCsQ/+ccpl6wLzeusyyzoJ/m8OjYy3IAJcQ4DoCy9fDE MnelOMlkuW756QU/pxRCBVPRKKfAB+d/KOR4teiOAoTUSm4N4sW3lN2kWSqf8LuFYiWZ 52GoR0ycibVnugcym1vgX/808ZbB3g2YIx9YTRznNvPJUfQfj5luaa1d1s63+aj04VaX re5017qwMIAlF0OUp3f1IFAUZdBpLUFjn3Sv50CJ7dHRV4vcnAiQXKYIXShhfojfIjns uh1iNn3kHcLGwivTT/q/leTF63xSZMxo78RIT8xdYhSNsa1dhzqbWaPdNcpFRQh35irH dWEw== Received: by 10.68.193.198 with SMTP id hq6mr7517830pbc.21.1339057427194; Thu, 07 Jun 2012 01:23:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.gmail.com:587 (74-95-192-101-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [74.95.192.101]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ub8sm3333094pbc.44.2012.06.07.01.23.44 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 07 Jun 2012 01:23:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtp.gmail.com:587 (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 07 Jun 2012 01:24:09 -0700 Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 01:24:09 -0700 From: Brian Harring To: Zac Medico Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue Message-ID: <20120607082409.GB3352@localhost.google.com> References: <4FCF2012.3040500@gentoo.org> <1338976106.2706.36.camel@belkin4> <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> 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-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4FCFF945.1070804@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: dcd0e685-7ba1-4a59-9c7e-a05f4dcd4f4b X-Archives-Hash: dbf06001d0b1c225bba1871d93a86e7d On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 05:43:49PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: > On 06/06/2012 12:23 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 21:16:05 +0200 > > Pacho Ramos wrote: > >> Well, I think reading this thread is more or less clear what it would > >> be supposed to do, also Zac suggested it and looks to have an idea > >> about what should it do. > > > > There's a big leap from "more or less clear" and "an idea" to the kind > > of knowledge we want to have. Think REQUIRED_USE for how this can go > > wrong... > > > > If you think ABI_SLOT is essential, why not try implementing it and > > trying it out in a large number of packages, and reporting your results? > > It's pretty close to the SLOT operator model, and it seems like it > should work fine. We can deploy EAPI 5_pre1 with ABI_SLOT support, and > test it in an overlay before we include it in the final EAPI 5. I'd prefer you nailing down the details a bit more before slipping it into an EAPI called "5_pre1"; aside from usual complaints, frankly I'd rather not have to figure out the design of it via raiding the patches out of portage history ;) If we're going to do this, there should be a way to represent the direction of compatibility. Might be overthinking it, but consider upgrades where new API is added; this does *not* break ABI, it extends it. Going in reverse however *would* break ABI for anything that was using the new additions. This issue can be avoided via usage of version operators w/ appropriate slot binding deps, just seems hanky in light of what we're talking about. I'm perfectly fine w/ ABI_SLOT and SLOT (I proposed a similar thing in '06/'07); I'd however suggest ensuring there is some buy in from devs on that one since that was the main argument against it in the past. That argument may no longer apply, but should be checked imo. ~harring