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 1ScgkR-0007Px-LT for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 07 Jun 2012 17:43:51 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EAF57E0663; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 17:43:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91D27E0531 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 17:42:31 +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 0DF171B4012 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 17:42:30 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4FD0E805.2090408@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 10:42:29 -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> <4FCFC9E4.8070503@gentoo.org> <20120607062840.2a8e2ece@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <20120607062840.2a8e2ece@googlemail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5pre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: a6506b92-d97c-4bb6-81c3-74bf3136c4ed X-Archives-Hash: 7aa5643d3ab9c6b0a580cb3c222bdf65 On 06/06/2012 10:28 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 14:21:40 -0700 > Zac Medico wrote: >>> 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. > > 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. But aren't you also trying to make them deviate from upstreams' release models? > Broken linkage due to an upgrade really shouldn't happen. It's certainly not ideal, but wouldn't it be useful to have the flexibility to accommodate it? Let's be practical. -- Thanks, Zac