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 1ScNgV-0004SI-LE for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 21:22:32 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 37D15E0828; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 21:22:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1404BE077A for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 21:21:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.26.5] (ip98-164-193-252.oc.oc.cox.net [98.164.193.252]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: zmedico) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 645D11B4010 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 21:21:42 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4FCFC9E4.8070503@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 14:21:40 -0700 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120506 Thunderbird/12.0.1 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue 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> In-Reply-To: <20120606181650.0c727f18@googlemail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5pre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 7282ae64-fb31-43ae-ab02-52ed678412ca X-Archives-Hash: 595d2e2c37d4d7ac0f7c2ddb023cb1cd On 06/06/2012 10:16 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:48:26 +0200 > Pacho Ramos wrote: >> That looks nice, only two notes: >> - Looks like would be more sense on distinguish between "SLOT" and >> ABI_SLOT, for example: >> * dbus-glib would rdepend on glib:2 >> * if glib:2 abi changes, we would pull a ABI_SLOT="2.32" >> inside glib-2 ebuild >> * dbus-glib rdepending on glib:=2 would get rebuilt >> If we would use "SLOT" for all the cases, how would we handle it? I >> mean, glib slot would be bumped to "2.32" and dbus-glib ebuilds >> updated to rdepend on every new slot? Or would package managers >> distinct between "versions" inside the same SLOT variable? > > You'd have a slot per ABI, and be encouraged to allow multiple versions > of glib to be installed in parallel. If you really couldn't do that > (and you should think very carefully before saying you can't, since > this directly affects users in a huge way), you can make the slots > block each other. 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. -- Thanks, Zac