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 1SeT0O-0006Bj-Sa for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:27:41 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7D0E6E05F1; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:27:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CDDCE044C for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:26:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.145] (CPE002401f30b73-CM001cea3ddad8.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.240.69.152]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: axs) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 62C741B4038 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:26:33 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4FD75FB4.3090705@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:26:44 -0400 From: Ian Stakenvicius User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.4) Gecko/20120511 Thunderbird/10.0.4 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: <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> <4FD3B859.9050903@gentoo.org> <20120610132555.74bded8c@googlemail.com> <20120610224950.GA3709@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20120610224950.GA3709@localhost> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 5b99893a-bf62-4771-a468-28e153ad4960 X-Archives-Hash: e47b7b6418e7f646ef1acd5f50ac07dd -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 10/06/12 06:49 PM, Brian Harring wrote: > On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 01:25:55PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 13:55:53 -0700 Zac Medico >> wrote: >>> 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? >> >> Here's a nicer syntax: no ABI_SLOT variable, and SLOT="2/2.32". > > Hate the slash; just looks ugly to me (so starts the bikeshed). > > Sans that naggle, notions fine however; not sure I'm a fan of > people being able to specify the exact ABI they need from an ebuild > while it's in source form, but may be of use for emul-* packages. > > ~harring > It's power will come from detection of the different SLOT= assignment between ebuilds of a particular library package. I don't forsee that there is going to be very much usage of the '/[ABI]' part in *DEPEND. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAk/XX7QACgkQ2ugaI38ACPDo6QD/XqsVP0UWmLrzxwFF1f2W6UsM aA3wM6aqYX+wc+uHGTAA/jk8jz6kCs5rEudSWWXYndg6LEKp1Rj+YC/C7tLlk9uW =tDdT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----