From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98E1E13827E for ; Sun, 8 Dec 2013 17:19:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9BE24E099B; Sun, 8 Dec 2013 17:19:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mo-p05-ob.rzone.de (mo-p05-ob.rzone.de [81.169.146.180]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15E6DE08BD for ; Sun, 8 Dec 2013 17:19:11 +0000 (UTC) X-RZG-AUTH: :IW0NeWCpcPchHrcnS4ebzBgQnKHTmUiSF2JlOcyz+57jTVMtVX7771jWiJc= X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo05 Received: from pinacolada.localnet (95-130-165-192.hsi.glasfaser-ostbayern.de [95.130.165.192]) by smtp.strato.de (RZmta 32.17 AUTH) with (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPSA id L0673epB8HIsMOF for ; Sun, 8 Dec 2013 18:18:54 +0100 (CET) From: "Andreas K. Huettel" To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Dependencies default to accept any slot value acceptable (:*), can we default to :0 instead? Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2013 18:19:34 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.10.7-gentoo; KDE/4.11.4; x86_64; ; ) References: <20131208175612.2b8c7e38@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> In-Reply-To: <20131208175612.2b8c7e38@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> 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; boundary="nextPart4719723.3AavRRoK39"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201312081819.40449.dilfridge@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: e39de0b8-79ce-4163-9adf-cb2fcc63f8e0 X-Archives-Hash: ff6290cee1c72f553a3a73815ec2f2f3 --nextPart4719723.3AavRRoK39 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Am Sonntag, 8. Dezember 2013, 17:56:12 schrieb Tom Wijsman: >=20 > When our defaults force us down such path, that can't be good and it > affects the quality of our Portage tree; so, this makes me wonder, can > we change the default from :* to :0? What do you think? >=20 I see the point, but I have my doubts on retroactively changing things. (It's a global change where we would have to be very very very careful=20 regarding interactions with eclasses and so on.) How about changing this in the next EAPI instead? E.g., in EAPI=3D6, if no slot dependency is given in a dependency specifica= tion,=20 default to :0=20 =2D-=20 Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer=20 dilfridge@gentoo.org http://www.akhuettel.de/ --nextPart4719723.3AavRRoK39 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQJ8BAABCgBmBQJSpKosXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQwNzlCRDk4QzA4RENBRkYzQUEwRjQzMDlF QkU2QTMzNkJFMTkwMzlDAAoJEOvmoza+GQOcMe4P/RchX/dYquaeBREg7Y8OAnPP GD+Es+q11F6qqS/ty+W7qnz9m9mp+TGNDQ8lxz+8SNKMFzbUnYFWhCkToQ4azrF3 4YM8NYRVm7lFWvXgaiT6nArbY46UP1vhddWAZpFz5g+5lBOxEho3oo0MBgReXYJz 28hPERd3tLxWShEmQT25aMRlPw+6uy3FJNXlv2lbEN65aYbkuEUJOmQoG9zJM0tB mwB2OVft66POqfWLIor6xEmYZdc7mCmrn5aWctFzuS76LlPrHhiVoNsDOcoZxc1F Y8HS5M6gBLGExNlLOtdfCVS0XW9T3Ag9aEFTfv2m898QE7uToU0UuE7TLru/jjT5 ihh9URO1h6T9cEKLCCQ6Ys8BDRB6iu/0KuQePTytg/NHLU4WDvWgWtBw1ZvB3O6R 5SJInFjkCASIa9H9ZwL5DpS5Iv8NhyfGGhn58jf7rj3Y7w6VqlzHgihsZJBCQV9I arP9TrXOBOcTk3RvyBHM0LwtIurOvJOUBnVeOOm88pe2Br4lXsKVvS0B8wCZih2g mi037H5vvljbN7zVHmLrblWIs+oOxum/jjP2c4zJ9kysRFO+DkukqMLAgxnzJqPv TLfvimtYPtoym5hiBG5hgFeeMxaWw6qLA36viEF+cB9GXmeUwsSNNrXaFaWvLo0u obW1ZRcu5LIufRz9xMlr =YN7r -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart4719723.3AavRRoK39--