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 1SchEc-0005VQ-FG for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 07 Jun 2012 18:15:02 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5F84BE07CA; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 18:14:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ee0-f53.google.com (mail-ee0-f53.google.com [74.125.83.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C76F8E0748 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 18:13:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by eekc41 with SMTP id c41so388791eek.40 for ; Thu, 07 Jun 2012 11:13:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type; bh=+U7Zo0OzqC8RRYbZSIOWJdTH4JErW448RU999LJ8AQU=; b=yLVdB7JWhy9ylVTWYglZr1srK947mVsdtfOEbRqCrprmX86ggrN4yR1/d2QpLK+Akz oEf2wPPB3nG66hqpV/j1/W8FFrVpOMZYxqO5vlT9TSpwIsqamQBi0j0ShoXEsZI5c/z7 V5TZ3a/VPHtL777ViFa7xy0K1mkXTUlPWuoGxfHTJ5QN2tMTgho6qkjXuV7bkClRSOsP 7sGljX6WgWOqjLucIgY237xgE+/tItuc3+XgujMunuM5v17pmZejon/3G2t2N/4TDFv9 GAnDgW6U/4Pjctq2ldnpro0kQcFiib18BUQ5RSiGPcknrSIBSnLOOzAFpcKVNl6acHmI jubQ== Received: by 10.14.99.206 with SMTP id x54mr1751873eef.94.1339092791105; Thu, 07 Jun 2012 11:13:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (cpc13-broo7-2-0-cust130.14-2.cable.virginmedia.com. [82.9.16.131]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hv7sm4042269wib.0.2012.06.07.11.13.09 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 07 Jun 2012 11:13:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 19:09:50 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue Message-ID: <20120607190950.6169f7b8@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <4FD0E805.2090408@gentoo.org> References: <1338845178.23212.1.camel@belkin4> <4FCDFF18.3080600@gentoo.org> <1338903062.21833.7.camel@belkin4> <4FCE913C.5060104@gentoo.org> <1338971313.2706.4.camel@belkin4> <4FCF2012.3040500@gentoo.org> <1338976106.2706.36.camel@belkin4> <20120606181650.0c727f18@googlemail.com> <4FCFC9E4.8070503@gentoo.org> <20120607062840.2a8e2ece@googlemail.com> <4FD0E805.2090408@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.0 (GTK+ 2.24.10; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) 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: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/01PtALQ6nKgN+jq7evynZMg"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: e495b181-8d37-4094-86d6-679852bc9bd3 X-Archives-Hash: 0a8b2ee9120238e928e1416125c590d8 --Sig_/01PtALQ6nKgN+jq7evynZMg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 10:42:29 -0700 Zac Medico wrote: > >> It seems like you're trying to make glib fit your SLOT operator > >> model, even though it's a natural fit for the ABI_SLOT operator > >> model. > >=20 > > No, I'm trying to strongly encourage people to make proper use of > > slots to avoid having mass breakages and annoyances on user > > systems, even if it means more work for developers. >=20 > But aren't you also trying to make them deviate from upstreams' > release models? Only if upstream are cowboys who go out of their way to make it hard to slot things. > > Broken linkage due to an upgrade really shouldn't happen. >=20 > It's certainly not ideal, but wouldn't it be useful to have the > flexibility to accommodate it? Let's be practical. Blockers plus SLOT provides that flexibility. --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_/01PtALQ6nKgN+jq7evynZMg Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk/Q7nEACgkQ96zL6DUtXhHHEgCgv35os0GdiZOxAV6sOQNkye1b I/cAoLAVmQ0kbJ7s/2QYMypPcYdIDQUf =NC83 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/01PtALQ6nKgN+jq7evynZMg--