Re: [gentoo-dev] xorg-server 1.0.99/1.1 ABI break

[Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org>]

Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Olivier Crête wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 2006-17-04 at 13:05 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>>
>>> Alec Warner wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well the semantics of the blocker is that the new driver won't work 
>>>> with the old server; is that true?  Or just the old drivers won't 
>>>> work with the new server?
>>>
>>> New server requires new drivers. Old server requires old drivers. 
>>> There is no valid combination of new and old.
>>
>>
>> Then you should probably has new drivers block old servers and new
>> servers block old drivers...
> 
> 
> OK, let's think about the results of this.
> 
> New drivers block old servers:
>     Rather, why wouldn't new drivers depend on a new server? This makes 
> sense and is already what we're doing.
> 
> New servers block old drivers:
>     This will require people to uninstall all their drivers to upgrade 
> their server. It will not automatically reinstall them in the 'emerge -u 
> xorg-server' case, but it _should_ reinstall them in the 'emerge -u 
> world' case _if_ they're using the xorg-x11 metabuild.
> 

I'll take TGL's suggestion, New server PDEPENDS on new drivers.

New drivers need new server, old drivers won't work with new server, 
doesn't touch the old driver ebuilds at all; I don't particularly see a 
down side ;)

> I'm not sure whether portage does a --deep by default now, but I think 
> that's what is necessary for correct behavior in the 'emerge -u world' 
> case.
It doesn't.
> 
> Thanks,
> Donnie

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list