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 1Sdqxi-0007tm-Up for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 22:50:23 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 24BCDE05D5; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 22:50:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pz0-f53.google.com (mail-pz0-f53.google.com [209.85.210.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2511E0230 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 22:49:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by dadg9 with SMTP id g9so5527500dad.40 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 15:49:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=c2zqstfGNlgFliiQ1AYqXt7Gr2FkPmnfbFJJf2uxYnY=; b=w4oXTJWO0cbqvZi9V7lF/Qkj7Ivi/JXZWALGGeBp/cT37Ff/MXAHhqI6cDgaYzSFKH vzHvqEm7jA4M9j7LdlEd6KDB/7nVJTjYIicASfWVmoVRBWbABI5qEOrV3Xj69YUhuXN7 yvLsCIj9Huo5RhfY6ca9n4C1BZ7yUhaFiuR2JIidNXYmrTWGSRyVGlWT+CrKPyjQ6rE9 JdDxJ/A5jJ2BVEqfmTtzzaCDAzwbVkYmxQ0yhdXan34+UuE39vRVAuMTTiIQbziSlh+2 AvptD2/0Rg01y9YnLl9Cs6m6zuXBxt93y0l0sJ6smiSHST5JJFiWiv4EZdQ2HC2Dycnl mVJQ== Received: by 10.68.201.136 with SMTP id ka8mr21570878pbc.124.1339368565906; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 15:49:25 -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 mt9sm16187188pbb.14.2012.06.10.15.49.22 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 10 Jun 2012 15:49:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtp.gmail.com:587 (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 10 Jun 2012 15:49:50 -0700 Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 15:49:50 -0700 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue Message-ID: <20120610224950.GA3709@localhost> References: <4FD0FC81.9070701@gentoo.org> <1339097086.3014.28.camel@belkin4> <4FD101EC.7080306@gentoo.org> <1339144721.4179.1.camel@belkin4> <4FD24F73.8000601@gentoo.org> <1339183412.4179.30.camel@belkin4> <4FD2532B.4030506@gentoo.org> <20120609131542.14ac5081@googlemail.com> <4FD3B859.9050903@gentoo.org> <20120610132555.74bded8c@googlemail.com> 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: <20120610132555.74bded8c@googlemail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: 6a7b0298-f560-4075-b462-770bd21a62ff X-Archives-Hash: 78d7a95cbf0474510b545d12f837dda0 On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 01:25:55PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 13:55:53 -0700 > Zac Medico wrote: > > A dependency atom will have optional SLOT and ABI_SLOT parts. Using > > the dbus-glib depedency on glib:2 as an example [1], the dbus-glib > > dependency will be expressed with an atom such as dev-libs/glib:2:= > > and the package manager will translate that atom to > > dev-libs/glib:2:=2.32 at build time. So, ':' is always used to > > distinguish SLOT deps, and ':=' is always used to distinguish > > ABI_SLOT deps. Is that syntax good? > > Here's a nicer syntax: no ABI_SLOT variable, and SLOT="2/2.32". Hate the slash; just looks ugly to me (so starts the bikeshed). Sans that naggle, notions fine however; not sure I'm a fan of people being able to specify the exact ABI they need from an ebuild while it's in source form, but may be of use for emul-* packages. ~harring