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 1Sch4h-0003Fv-HZ for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 07 Jun 2012 18:04:47 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id ACEE8E072E; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 18:04:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97EB7E071E for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 18:03:27 +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 1A05D1B4012 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 18:03:27 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4FD0ECED.10201@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 11:03:25 -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: <4FCF2012.3040500@gentoo.org> <1338976106.2706.36.camel@belkin4> <20120606181650.0c727f18@googlemail.com> <1339005744.2706.47.camel@belkin4> <20120606191505.4e011158@googlemail.com> <1339007452.2706.57.camel@belkin4> <20120606193348.67b83427@googlemail.com> <1339010165.2706.62.camel@belkin4> <20120606202340.6c95711f@googlemail.com> <4FCFF945.1070804@gentoo.org> <20120607082409.GB3352@localhost.google.com> <4FD0DA34.8080409@gentoo.org> <20120607184008.09aca0fe@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <20120607184008.09aca0fe@googlemail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5pre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 954b49c6-eae5-45b2-a5b9-273b4ab2332d X-Archives-Hash: bb1024bc7af356bfa0b6b1d4ec6d3f40 On 06/07/2012 10:40 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:43:32 -0700 > Zac Medico wrote: >> I can imagine that ABI_SLOT operator deps will be a lot more popular >> than SLOT operator deps, since ABI_SLOT operator deps will accommodate >> the common practice of allowing ABI changes within a particular SLOT. > > You're missing out on a brilliant opportunity to encourage developers > put in a bit more work to save users a huge amount of pain here. What about cases like the dbus-glib and glib:2 dependency, where it's just too much trouble to use SLOT operator deps? Wouldn't it be better to have a little flexibility, so that we can accommodate more packages? As a workaround for SLOT operator deps, I suppose that glib:1 could be split into a separate glib-legacy package, in order to facilitate the use of SLOT operator dependencies in dbus-glib. That way, it would be easy to match glib-2.x and not have to worry about trying not to match glib-1.x. -- Thanks, Zac