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 1SdSiP-0005Wk-Dq for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 09 Jun 2012 20:56:57 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 67D0EE0552; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 20:56:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 195C9E049A for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 20:55:56 +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 6B9D71B4007; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 20:55:55 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4FD3B859.9050903@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 13:55:53 -0700 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120607 Thunderbird/13.0 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 CC: pacho@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> <4FD0ECED.10201@gentoo.org> <1339092995.3014.23.camel@belkin4> <1339094634.3014.24.camel@belkin4> <20120607194448.1577119e@googlemail.com> <1339095641.3014.26.camel@belkin4> <4FD0FC81.9070701@gentoo.org> <1339097086.3014.28.camel@belkin4> <4FD101EC.7080306@gentoo.org> <1339144721.4179.1.camel@belkin4> <4FD24F73.8000601@gentoo.org> <1339183412.4179.30.camel@belkin4> <4FD2532B.4030506@gentoo.org> <20120609131542.14ac5081@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <20120609131542.14ac5081@googlemail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5pre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 833642cd-cfa8-4dd8-accf-8888cedd3246 X-Archives-Hash: e03403474d854cba2a67d6c248e7d86e On 06/09/2012 05:15 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 12:31:55 -0700 > Zac Medico wrote: >> We can just write a specification for this one feature, and ask the >> Council to approve it. > > The last feature someone did that way was REQUIRED_USE, and we all know > how that turned out... > > What you *should* do is get an implementation, then try converting lots > of ebuilds with and without being able to use ABI_SLOT. Okay, so let's create an ABI_SLOT operator specification, just for testing purposes. In order to keep things as simple as possible, let's make our model as close as possible to the existing SLOT operator model. Ebuilds that do not define ABI_SLOT will be considered to have an implicit ABI_SLOT value that is equal to their SLOT value. This way, ABI_SLOT operator deps will behave identically to SLOT operator deps when ABI_SLOT is undefined. A dependency atom will have optional SLOT and ABI_SLOT parts. Using the dbus-glib depedency on glib:2 as an example [1], the dbus-glib dependency will be expressed with an atom such as dev-libs/glib:2:= and the package manager will translate that atom to dev-libs/glib:2:=2.32 at build time. So, ':' is always used to distinguish SLOT deps, and ':=' is always used to distinguish ABI_SLOT deps. Is that syntax good? [1] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_9f2d42da278f4815f2bfe57bfc5c2de5.xml -- Thanks, Zac